Scribblings that are made by myself. I've just added these because I find great joy and pride in rereading and rediscovering what I write. These writings are all kinds of things and rated below Philosophical Notes and Issues From the Internet.
This whole (web-)page of my writings belongs to my person, i.e., © Terje Lea / Terje L. F. Olsnes-Lea 2010 - 2011, but also as indicated by the writings themselves (2009 - 2011?). Make no mistake about it!
I agree with "Megalomania, god complex" and "Erotomania(?), obsessive love, Münchausen by Proxy, self mutilation(?), sadism,
machochism(?)"! Well done, HexHammer [a user by Philosophy Now forum]!
Now, which of the two categories do they go into? And how do they relate to in the spectrum of these 2 categories?
For now, self mutilation is a sympton, I believe, not a mental disorder by itself.
Machochism is not either a defined mental disorder! It may just be the worship of being man by men or the man himself.
There's nothing wrong in this. (I.e., they are not sexists just by machochism and machochism is not contradictory to an
equal partnership with a woman, I believe.)
Besides, this thread really relates to this:
The billowing "millions" of mentally ill people by diagnosis, but mentally healthy in the functional respects
(that is, there is no unifying guidelines to how the mental health industry is to behave, I reckon)
and this
The Philosophy of Psychiatry edited by Jennifer Radden,
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780195313277.do?keyword=jennifer+radden&sortby=bestMatches
It says in the review of Psychiatry in the Scientific Image by Dominic Murphy in BJPS, Vol. 60, nr. 3, 2009, p. 676, that "(5) Finally, Chapters 9 and 10 reach the book's goal with an account of Murphy's vision of a future etiology-based classification in psychiatry." While the author speaks much about biology and neuroscience (by concrete traces in the brain), I think it may be rewarding to also, or by higher priority, look to patterns of thinking to causes of insanity. This means in actual terms that a kind of "psychology of moralism/ethics" lies as the foundation for how one may develop paths of pathologies, even outside the usual psychiatric spectrum. As I've written then, if you go outside the normative ethics, strange stuff can happen to your life and that this is the start of such a line, but also made objective by the metabolism test of the blood.
The last I've read about psychiatry is that one is unclear, in terms of phil. of science, what is actually in the medical discipline of psychiatry and that this topic is meant to address this.
[Edit:] ...by diagnosis... Sorry.
[Edit2:] Added a few words from BJPS, Vol. 60, nr. 3, 2009. Psychiatry in the Scientific Image by Dominic Murphy
I have some good news people!!!
Here is the list of search engines around the world: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/.
What is so striking about it now, is that the list has grown enormously!!!!!!
So for world democracy, I recommend:
http://eu.ixquick.com/uk/
http://www.metacrawler.com/
http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/MetaLibOverview
http://www.info.com/
These are only a few! The conclusion is clear: F*ck the idiots!!! (And to the extent that USA is subversive to the world, f*ck USA as well, with the menace of the way they are doing business on a multi-level, i.e., by use of various and all sorts of business "methods", not always legal (by understatement), I suspect!!!)
Yes, Google is not the world's Jesus Christ! That is, Google is not the salvation for the world (alone)!!!
[Edit:] PS: Another list of search engines that you may want to follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines! It has all the categories! It's very nice!
First of all, it's worth noting that multiculturalism has brought us closer as a human kind globally than ever before! As such, I find it hard to "refute" or discredit! No, I say "multiculturalism forever!"
I just like to give you the notice on how powerful the idiot USA can get in building power over people everywhere.
CIA is especially mentioned.
http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2011/05/02/wikileaks-founder-facebook-is-the-most-appalling-spy-machine-that-has-ever-been-invented/
So, make no mistake about it, please! Again, I support Wikileaks (by Assange) in their assertions in the above interview that you can download. It may very well be that some of these aspects should face harder legislation on privacy issues in the World (exc. USA)!!!
I must also say that these notions run very well with my own growing scepticism of USA and what a "monster" that may hide inside there. [Links?]
Not that I recommend people to quit using Facebook, but I encourage people, especially outside USA, to be careful with the information they put in there!
I want to speculate on the reason why U.S. Americans never really can press the "Nuke the World"-button!
First of all, would the U.S. Americans be able to live with the controversy aftermath considering their very mixed society/societies, with all the ethnicities?
Secondly, are U.S. Americans now dependent on the good "energies" of foreigners now to sustain themselves?
Thirdly, there would be vast environmental impacts and would USA be able to live with this in retrospect? The full nuclear holocaust would destroy vast areas of surface terrain on land and would destroy a vast number of species in addition to the humans.
So I bet that the U.S. Americans are playing with the button in the sense that the great Atlantic and the Pacific will protect them from any aftermath effects and that they are self-sufficient with food capacities and most other minerals and mines and what have you. In theory, there might be a chance then "to create a self-delusion" to self-justify the nuclear destruction to the rest of the world, pending South America in consideration, i.e., how much of our Southies to preserve?
This is of course not entirely serious. I just want to entertain the thought with you and inform people of this notion.
I must also say that this is probably the most cynical thought you may ever get from the U.S. Americans!!! If this thought is utterly removed, the world will have nudged forward a little toward (emotional) world peace (in everyone).
I can only point to the high seas of the currencies before the Euro entered on how we should proceed.
Before, we were easily at war with one another, but now we have grown into a more coherent whole and I think we should
continue this. As such, we leave room to one another to take charge of one's space, the state/nation, while thinking of
keeping together region-wise, EU/Europe, and to progress the democratic development of the world as well.
I even think we have the virtues to do better in this than USA despite their smiles and hovering.
So it's just this: keep the history of the currencies fresh and I think you'll get the point. It's not so easy to answer now to 501 million in that downward manner as it used to be when talking to each nation/state on their own. Also, the other good European countries now enjoy the fortunate shade of the big brother EU to the same effect.
Conclusion: Europe is now a collected head with a path to the future going straight ahead!!!
Some more on "race" or "skin colour":
"Brown" people, "am I eating cocoa in my sleep, daddy, so that I'm brown?" or "am I brown because I'm like poo, daddy?"
"Yellow" people, "am I eating too much oranges, daddy?" or "am I yellow because yellow is my favourite colour, daddy, or all of us Asians?"
No you, good people, it's just the sun tan and the life pattern of your family tree down the generations! Look to Japan and ask of their Southies as opposed to their Northies and I think you'll see differences.
Heck, even compare the "brown" Spaniards and Italians and compare them with the "white" Scandinavians! So are we Scandinavians in love with vanilla ice cream. No, of course not!
Just take the relative sun tan and the life pattern of your family tree down the generations and combine it with your life pattern now (outdoor life, beaches, agricultural work, work in the sun) and other factors, like the personal aesthetics of epi-genetics and possibly diet. Then you have it! This is your skin colour now! Great or what?
I've been sharing these thoughts with a number of people for quite a while and some good descriptions are probably underway in this respect!
I note that this thread [has been placed] in the Religion section because I too love the people who aspire to go "to Heaven"!
(Or perhaps you're being ironic about it.)
At least, there are reasons to be worried over mankind/humanity too. Recently, the Hyena-theory has been launched by a
psychologist as a kind of justification for who "we are", i.e., all the Ted Bundys and the rest, that is, random/ignorant
humanistic conduct.
I for one see massive corruption, a constant fight for even speaking against a constant world slavery/poverty, common place crime, heck even the conflict in Afghanistan seems to preserve the drugs-argument, i.e., the drugs should run free.
To this, the top characteristic of humanity, rationality/intelligence, has failed! I sometimes think even the animals would shake their heads over us! Addressing the best of society, wherever it is, has become a demonstration of power and a type of cronyism/despotism.
Conclusion, one can surely "head for Heaven with a good heart and peace in mind" because most of today's humanity seems destined "for Hell"!
[Edit:] Added rationality/intelligence and I also think it's given that ethical sense derives of this, but this is an implicit point that I don't bother to add in the plain text. [End of edit.]
I know, but we can to greater degrees become more used to translation tools for our software!
Thus, very ignorant to the U.S. Americans, normatively probably, we should have guidelines on how to make
translation available in all software (where useful) and perhaps to greater extents use translators by mobile
phones as a household item, especially for people who may have interests to that end. We should also work toward
lowering the threshold of making contact through these translation tools!
Conclusion: we need to overcome obstacles of getting in contact with one another over language differences by the use of technology! F.x.: Germans should travel more to France and make use of these translation tools to the French and the French should be smiling to the well-meaning German to this end. Even the Greek on the fine sun spots for summer holidays should become attractive language wise! We should get out more and meet one another, by use of technology!
Our aim should be to unite our "Oregon" with our "Texas" and "Florida", i.e., Greece, Sweden and Britain/England together or Bulgaria, Finland and France! Not that they are apart, but I'd like people to view these countries closer together than I think they are viewed today!
My answer is that Black Holes are sufficiently defined (by their "circles", where the Black Holes start to be black, the rims of them) to consider them defined (as opposed to tacky).
This is in relation to an ongoing discussion that has encumbered my brain for a while now. I'm not sure what the latest is from the Physicists.
The importance of this discussion hinges on what the nature of Black Holes is and thus how this nature has implication on a tacky or defined edge! So the nature of the edge of a Black Hole is really a discussion of the nature of the Black Hole.
(Just this notice. I've also edited this writing once now, 21.04.2011.)
I'm only interested in giving "telepathy" a representation in physics insofar as it exists. Its existence will not be discussed in this topic by myself, at least!
Either way, your reply reminds me of this by Bladerunner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiuAI-GuOOc
By Bladerunner, it says:
Replicant: Tortoise? What's that?
Mr. Holden: You know what a turtle is?
Replicant: Of course!
Mr. Holden: Same thing!
Replicant: I've never seen a turtle!
By Bladerunner [further in by the scene], it says:
Mr Holden: But it can't! Not without your help! But you're not helping!
Replicant: What do you mean I'm not helping?
Mr. Holden: I mean you're not helping!
It's somewhat similar with telepathy, if you're not interested in being open towards it, I couldn't give a damn! I'm not
some telepathy-evangelist, hammering telepathy into people's minds! No, I'm all ignorant about it except for bringing out
information that may bring telepathy to a greater range/number of people and in turn increase their own joy of life! If you
don't care, so be it! It's that simple!!!
It's somewhat similar with telepathy, if you're not interested in being open towards it, I couldn't give a damn! I'm not some telepathy-evangelist, hammering telepathy into people's minds! No, I'm all ignorant about it except for bringing out information that may bring telepathy to a greater range/number of people and in turn increase their own joy of life! If you don't care, so be it! It's that simple!!!
If you master/know about telepathy, then implicitly, you do understand more to your life than before and even so, your consciousness has increased because you know about it. I also hold that your rationality has increased because you remove all those subtle signals that you now are aware of! In fact, I think you've become a better human!
[Edit, 04.05.2011:] Added some extra lines from the Bladerunner movie in this interview situation! [End of edit.]
Just a note, people. There is indeed a common explanation in physics that can be used in this relation and it's called Twin Spin. I don't know where it's from or what evidence/experiments that are underlying this term. You can search a little too if you want.
I think it goes: let's say a person somehow sends one's thoughts through the air/space (by particles/photons or such) and these carry with them "signals" that are transferred to particles such that telepathy obtains and these particles display thus this "twin spin"! Good?
I hope you like this little addition. I must say that "twin spin" has been out in the world of physics for quite a while now (10 -15 year?) and that I'm not attempting to write something new. "Twin Spin" is not my invention!
Just because some people support the short-sight doesn't mean that this topic has been successfully discussed, the case of telepathy.
Just as me, you haven't made much academic references yourself.
I don't blame you (the repliers to this topic) for this, but it doesn't make your case stronger either.
Conclusion: I recognise that I've been airing some views on the physics foundation of telepathy in terms of serious
reductionism that I really believe in. I also see that more literature-research is to necessary to determine the most
plausible argument of this telepathy phenomenon. As such, I deem this CASE still OPEN!!! I probably won't add more to
this topic, but you are, of course, welcome to add the whole world to this topic if you want to!
To your help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_investigation_of_telepathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=esp&st=cse
By NYTimes, quote:
"One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as
strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events."
"The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects."
My underlining.
Thus, Daryl J. Bem, Cornell University is the man to look up for. I stick with him as I find it definite too or "statistically significant" as it's otherwise expressed!
First of all, people should cite properly! And the same people should credits (that we know of) to deem significant research vs. insignificant research (to which I favour prof. Bem's judgment)!!!
Moreover, such an off-hand remark over the "thousands of failed experiments" carries no weight as 1. they are not referenced and 2. they are taken out of thin air where they are uttered by people who have no literature study to show for!
Otherwise, all I've been saying is that this case is still open to which I lay down these links (see above).
Let me add another point.
Just because people have had "farm machines" and use these to prove that the Neutron exists and they've failed at it many thousands of times, doesn't mean that the Neutron doesn't exist because it does exist! And it has been proven by people who used the proper equipment and apparatus. So number is not equal to authority or truth value as in number of experiments or so.
[Edit2:] I've forgotten to mention that it has been published in a renowned journal which may indicate a certain prestige or weight of both the professor and this particular kind of research. [End of edit.]
[Edit:] A little thing. An analogy may be that some people who have invested time and serious interest and found telepathy are matched with "morons" who are even refusing to see the possibility for it. It's hard, therefore, to show for anything else than correlation to these people who don't know. [End of edit.]
Point 2. I support James Randi and he's been effective in removing idiot science (thus pseudo-science) out of the serious picture. I also think that he has made a prize for a special kind of the ESP and that his description of a certain aspect of ESP doesn't really entail telepathy.
[Edit:]
Also, you fail to recognise that there are 9, nine, different set-ups and you, by your mistake, reason consequently that the
whole research is just crap despite the 10, ten, years of continuous efforts! Considering your sloppy approach, I don't think
you need to investigate this further. No, leave it to able people, like prof. Bem!
Besides, I've noted before that I really support the best experiment (set-up) to determine Telepathy and this is to my knowledge
the "ganzfeld experiment" set-up. Also, one may do well to separate initially those who are positive to such an
experiment/phenomenon and those who are negative because the negative people do mostly represent a drag that's not useful!
[End of edit.]
But this doesn't take away my point, regardless!
Some more on the telepathy issue:
First of all, I'd like to make the note that prof. Bem seems to have emphasised the harder parts of ESP and not the easier
part that's telepathy. I find this dubious! Secondly, I think their data-set has been fixed so that 53% is 53% and not the
much clearer rate with the much more able people of about 80%. People are thus inclined to think that this investigation by
prof. Bem is only at this slim level. That the results are not significant when it can easily show that actually are by making
a clearer correlation by the more able people!!!
I also happen to believe that USA thinks of telepathy as "high" (or "highest" by word of a woman in USA) as in having a high standing, you know, as skill or importance of a mindful faculty. It's therefore my "damn" recommendation that the rest of the world comes to grips with this and makes it "high" in their society as well. I easily think that the schizophrenic's story of being possessed with a person can be transferred to being a kind of political science where USA more or less regulates the world based on personality type put into a larger system of parts to play in dominating the world. That is, the subversive types to operate against all foreign issues and the constructive types to work on domestic issues. I loathe to sound like this theorist of conspiracy, but this is actually a story!!! Your ignorance to telepathy may get costly!!!
I think also that prof. Bem knows that projecting faculties of the mind can more easily cause anxiety and chaos rather than the more pleasant telepathy, that when privacy is maintained, it creates a very positive role in people's lives in that it reinforces people's connections and makes life seem more lively and colourful! So in reading about this future event reading, take a step back, and rather pursue telepathy first since it's more basic in my opinion.
1. conclusion: I think prof. Bem has made a deliberately "weak" case for himself and that there is more in this than commoners know. I also think he's been dishonest in keeping telepathy back-hand, a kind of sleight of hand trick to the world, a statement, perhaps. Beware of this, please! And I can only recommend the thoroughest evaluation of his research, including definite knowledge of the underlying data and all else!!!
[Edit:] I also like to add that I suspect that USA has been going at this for 150 years or so and enabling this special view to the rest of the world, setting up a kind of political science of control! The rest is for you to discover! [End of edit.]
[Edit2:] In an old writing from 2004 (the old forum), I've connected projecting faculties of the mind with reports I've read on the amagdyla and it's role in this. You may want to add this to your inquiry! The amagdyla from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala! I'll try to locate it even! :-) [End of edit.]
Good? Cheers! :)
[Edit, 30.04.2011:] I've added a small note on "highest". [End of edit.]
Aetixintro by the old Philosophy Now forum writes:
"Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: is telepathy possible?"
"Hi
I would like to defend the position that Telepathy exists.
First, the existence of telepathy in science is based on particle physics, namely quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of twin particles. Instances where 2 particles have the same condition or the same spin of up to great distances apart.
Secondly, it is referred to the Amygdala-area in the brain where a plain scientific test pinpointed the active braincells while in 'telepathic' state or where the subject is experiencing telepathy.
Thirdly, telepathic witnesses to crimes have been used with great success in aiding the police detectives. An experienced police-detective said he would not hesitate to recommend psychics in aiding the police to solve serious crime. There are plenty of the series, just watch Discovery Channel.
Fourthly, telepathy has been connected to the ability to foresee events. That is when one is thinking of the future, the ability is somewhat similar to projecting what is going to happen. Same again with amygdala-related tasks.
Fifthly, I recall something from the BBC News just recently where one is to review the position one has on people hearing voices, not only those mentally ill. This is all I have to say for now. Science will probably teach us all what there is to it in some time, but for now I believe in telepathy and many with me."
At least, I add my voice to this topic because something is totally out of line! I think this applies to Police around the world and that the world is quite crazy... :-|
I wonder what makes Police so "above" the rest of society beyond their own salary! They have indeed accepted the "package" that comes with police work and they have a duty to comply with job requirements and generally show good behaviour toward society even outside of work! (This used to be an addition to the perpetrator (of former Police force) from the Judge some time ago.)
From their own psychology: it may be useful to see the Police enforcers as "Kings [and Queens] (of metal) of Society"! They are "that good"! :)
Just a tip: approach the Police with scepticism and and be hard on "routines" and "safety measures" in case something abrupt is to happen. Also, I think it's a duty (to society) to file a complaint if there is such grounding. Stay alert, people!
You don't mention the likely cognition of this dead fetus. A fetus of 4.5 (4 and a half) months has a memory of less than a minute, I think, and the emotional maturity of 0, that is, ZERO! The fetus has no clue of what is going on and is merely "set-up" by automatic responses, by automatic bio-feedback. So to "abort" such a fetus by bringing it into a separate room, into a decapitation machine of kind that grinds it after it has become two parts and flushes it to the special waste container should not be a problem!
My theory is that the (standard object by 1 kg of) iron will as you say, very correctly radiate infra-red waves and thus release photons of this kind in return, but that's only half the story. You can measure this by several detectors. One (set of) detector(s) that can give a number on "escaped" photons. One ampere-meter that keeps track on electricity to fuel the light source onto the iron of ours. Iron in vacuumed chamber, vacuumed chamber measured before and after the iron is inserted, in its vacuumed state. Also, a dark room/chamber should be used to this end, containing the experiement, i.e., making up the laboratory. Once the experiment is set, you can instrument it so that no "idiot" needs to enter the room. Everything is set up so that the data from the experiment is transferred to a computer somewhere else.
I guess this goes for description nr. 2.
I think my new concept lies first and foremost in description. How one wants to balance out the numbers of strong/weak interactions for making a credible calculation of the new "gravity" is of less importance I think, because the world stays the same and gravity also stays the same, at appx. g=9,81 m/s^2. The job is how one can match these numbers and appear credible while doing so!
Published? I guess you mean Nature or something. No, not anytime soon! You should, though, note that it's already published by myself and thus is regulated under intellectual property!
If I'm able to formulate laws of nature expressed in formulas? YES!
Clearly, the convention of physics says 4 forces of nature: Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electro-Magnetism and Gravity.
I say: Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electro-Magnetism and by either or combination of Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction implies "Gravity". So gravity goes out as an own concept and is, by myself at least, only to be known in the future as a cascading effect of either or combination of Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction!
You should note that in light of this view from Smolin, he is also saying that the road ahead should be supported by (empirical) evidence!
Some more words on my "Opinions on Physics": My angle to solving or providing a better explanation of gravity can be considered Cascading Effects of Weak and Strong or either of them as purely magnetic force (thus constituting gravity) and holding off Electromagnetic force to itself (by the property of electrons and possibly others). I'm also to enter this into the OP.
Let me insert, please, that John Nash's (non-) game theory that people who are in conflict are better off with working by themselves than taking part in game of every one type. Thus this is a kind of "in the interest of each person's end (and therefore not in conflict with one another).
Every measurement happens in the present, thus a neutron can't be measured "from the future". And as we measure, the very signal of this measurement still carries with it the present, even though you like to write "the past". Just this. I'm not interested in making points/"points" in this for the time being. (Also, partly, because of limited knowledge of (absurd) "thoughts"/thoughts on QM or what is the consensus or best view on QM now!
Let me remind you that a point is indeed without extension no matter what. Indeed, per definition it is without any dimensions whatsoever!
Thus, as a point in time is "now", it's equally without any extension in the split/distinction between past and future! Conclusion: one is certain in saying that "now" is definitely without any possibility whatsoever! Try to contend me on this!
Can it be (rather humourously): that Lung emphysema is caused by stress (possibly including other factors) and that reduction of eye-sight (away from 20/20 vision) is caused purely by bacteria in the eye-apples around the eye-lenses, the biological ones? That is, zapping bacteria in the eyes (with lasers) can restore eye-sight just as well as adjusting the eye-lenses themselves (with lasers). What do you think?
I'm just airing some ideas here. Don't shoot me for them and they are not entirely seriously put forward by myself.
I have two new inquiries today: what happens when you "pull" out a rod/radioactive material out of the "bath"? And to what degree can the container room/vessel room take any increased heat in case there is such heat from pulling out the radioactive material? Any operating manual, anyone, please? It may be that one may have just switched of the electrical power to the reactors, emptying the "baths"/vessels and let the vessels take the (rel. little) heat from this process, even enduring the "remains" to meltdown on the bottom of the vessels. That is, if such a "small" meltdown, having no (major) reaction possibility, can be endured, that is off with the tops and in with new vessels after having been "used" for one "controlled" meltdown. What do you think?
Hence shutdowns/"controlled" meltdowns in the event of the Kobe quake or any such thereof. Investigate? Yes! I'm now also
waiting for the aftermath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_earthquake
Apart from the crisis as such and rather a nuclear technology question: does anyone know whether it's right to lift the radioactive material out of the water or if it's the right thing to submerge the radioactive material with water/seawater? I may think they may be doing the wrong thing, that the right procedure is to get the rods/radioactive material out of water, either carefully one "section" at the time or several at once! What do you think? (Are the Japanese technicians out of their minds?) (Not that I accuse them as such.) It turns out the Japanese have been following conventional emergency procedures in this crisis with these nuclear reactors which is good. I suspect that Nuclear Power as such has proven a decent face despite being hit hard by disaster of a major tsunami by an 8,9 Richter's earthquake outside the coast of Japan.
[Edit:] This is in context with a Discovery documentary on Chernobyl and this information from Japan that they flood the rods
with water/seawater. Should the future rather be Pellet-nuclear reactors for nuclear power? I also like to remind people that
France hasn't had a single severe accident with their nuclear power plants. Analogy: Norway hasn't had a single (very) severe
oil related accident despite its off-shore technology and in contrast to the recent BP disaster in The Gulf of Mexico. Finally,
it may also be that the Japanese technicians want to burn out the radioactive fuel left in the reactors possibly being also a
kind of a rational procedure in the face of immediate disaster, left with no other good alternatives... Concerning "pellet based
nuclear power", South Africa has two of this type!
(You can perhaps consider the Alexander Kielland disaster, but this was a construction failure, not an operating failure.)
(You can also include the Bravo blowout on the Ekofisk complex by Phillips Petroleum, but this was in the 70s (1977) and not
within the latest 30 years when industry standards have been firmly laid down.)
[Edit2, 15.03.2011:]
Japanese legal level of radiation: 0,5 Sv (1 Sv causes nausea) On radiation SI-units again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSv.
I realise that the method of the Japanese at the Fukushima plant has been named "Feed and Bleed" by some of the media! [End of edit.]
[Edit, 15.03.2011:] I withdraw on every allegation of Japanese "insanity" with the nuclear plant operators. They've been doing well!
[Edit3, 15.03.2011:] Added note on the Bravo blowout in 1977.
I think indeed that Chernobyl is the worst that has the possibility to happen and that we are now seeing nuclear power plants that has a much more efficient safety/security policy and that the amounts of radioactive material (beyond what is merely present in the reactors) is nicely controlled so that it has little or NO chance to contribute to any meltdown! Thus Geenpeace nuclear power paranoia is thwarted for all future to come!
[Edit, unsp.:] It should also be noted that I have information from a VERY informing Discovery documentary of the Chernobyl accident some time ago. I've also seen other documentaries both before and after, but with higher "emotional" content!
[Edit2, unsp.:] I've added "...(beyond what is...)..." for separating reactive content in direct danger and the reactive content in indirect danger, but possibly contributing to any meltdown.
I'm going to write against the notion of this: "The Best is Not Consistent With Good (Only)". I think it stems from French that says: "le meilleur n'est pas compatible avec le bon" - please correct me if I'm wrong!
I just want to vote for the good intention of this thread because I also think that USA isn't so silent/nice that it pretends to be and in case they want some information they should damn well say why they want it. F.x. if they call a bank to ask for information, they should supply a GOOD reason for this otherwise Europeans are sitting ducks for some paid thugs hired by Facebook (just a hypothetical example) to make Hell out of the lives of good Europeans who plan to compete with Facebook (in this example) when they are indeed transferring money to and from investors and venture capitalists. I'd like to warn people, though, that one should keep this information loosely in the back of the head, otherwise Paranoia is going to take over your life in terms of, at least, time consumption and energy drain (from worries)!
[Edit:] Please take note of the Fortune's Richest People list. Europe has its share for sure.
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires. It seems to have been published 9th March, yesterday that is, for 2011. [End of edit.]
Hear this! Hear this! Hear this! Hear this!
Has St. Albert Magnus by his "observations"/"experiments" of Androids (would they be little abused kids, predominently (choir) boys?) become ravingly mad? What was it about? What is the etymology behind St. Albert Magnus' Androids?
It's my theory that his descriptions concerning Androids were banned by the Catholic church because they were indeed ravingly mad and that the church is hiding them in the basement of the Vatican where the corruption continues to permeate Christianity!!! This can only be SCANDAL and is last signalised by the abrupt and deeply immoral behaviour by the Catholic priests when they abused "our" fine little (choir) boys!!! :tears: :tears: :tears: :cry: :cry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus!!!
Now! Hear this too! It reads: Albertus is frequently mentioned by Dante, who made his doctrine of free will the basis of his ethical system. In his Divine Comedy, Dante places Albertus with his pupil Thomas Aquinas among the great lovers of wisdom (Spiriti Sapienti) in the Heaven of the Sun. Albertus is also mentioned, along with Agrippa and Paracelsus, in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, where his writings serve as an influence to a young Victor Frankenstein.
Can you believe it??? He is cited in the most abysmal work of horror of all time, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein!!! There is only one thing to say!!! Catholic church! I hereby call for world wide cleansing of the (Catholic) souls and for a NEW, great inquisition to take place!!! You know what needs to be done! God's ways are unmistakeable! I also (unfortunately) need to point out that the inquisition is "confined" by modern laws and needs to comply with them... Hint, hint, hint...
Uggghhh... scary... eh... cheers!
And it is also my point that gravity of the Earth by its magnetic field can be redefined as either a combination of strong and weak interactions/forces or either of them. To say Earth's gravity or Earth's gravity field or the magnetic gravity field of the Earth is only a matter of convention. How nice to make the magnetism of the Earth stand out, i_blame_blame, other than that, you're not doing anything else than reiterating my point, that Graviton is virtually dead and that a possible solution can be found in the redefinition.
[Edit:] You can consider Earth's gravity vs. the Sun's gravity that has no clearly defined north and south pole, I think. The Sun's magnetic field of gravity is quite hazy! [End of edit.]
[Edit2:] Added the missing "interactions/forces". [End of edit.]
[Edit3:] The point for me is to bridge gravity of the Sun to the gravity of the Earth to magnetism in general, even the little magnets on the fridge. In doing so, I envision how easy it should be to come up with a number for the magnetic force that is required for bending the light, that this is really only a matter of public education. You know, even NASA spells it out that bending the light by electro-magnets is impossible because photons have no charge. This must obviously be WRONG!!! [End of edit.]
"Why we can (possibly) see the future?" By the projecting faculties of the mind in the mind AND not on the sky! Just the suggestion.
I hereby suggest that we (in Europe) should reinvigorate Carthage as a city of the kind of Las Vegas and make it also to be the business promotion site and portal for European-African connections (of mostly business importance)!
I think such a project may be able to hold many good virtues! Let's do it!
I have bought the 3 volumes work by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and I'd like to review it in some time to come!
However, there appears to be a deficiency in it:
when you are to inquire about morality of people, you don't need to put on the table very complex questionnaires. No, you only need
to check for the (objective) simple rule-following of the type of (Neo-)Kantianism. And there is no need to adjust the inquiry to each
one person. No, you put the same thing to everybody. This may get lost when you begin to read Moral Psychology that's edited by Walter
Sinnott-Armstrong.
All in all, moral inquiry and moral psychology testing is about testing a person's views in relation to duties and rule-following.
A small note (of no particular importance): I have a feeling that the U.S. Americans are holding back on some of their best views when
they are to put their views out to the world, although I'm not willing to stand by this or that "conspiracy" theory in this regard.
(There should be no need to emphasise research ethics and private people's rights, regardless of ethics or not!)
Einstein is reported to have uttered or written that "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure
about the former" and in case humanity is really stupid, i.e., becomes or is dominantly characterised than I'd like to write:
"If humanity proves to be stupid then I hope for humanity to be stupid in final terms, that is, thus providing hope and ethical character
in opposition to the darkest statement I've seen, that is, this statement from Einstein. For humanity to be stupid like that and possibly
to spread like virus is indeed the deepest and darkest possibility there is for human kind!"
I'd also like to throw in another quote from Einstein that should be very useful for those who wish to preserve their own chances of
intelligence:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Half the expertise of philosophy (and the Ivy League) lies in guidance and enabling the students to become masters in their field. A key
part of this is the curriculum. I present here some good advise on Philosophy books to read from the University of Oslo and I hope you can
add others. Perhaps you like to comment on them as well. It follows:
Metaphysics and Philosophy of Mind:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1001/v11/pensumliste.xml
Epistemology and Philosophy of Science:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1002/h10/pensumliste.xml
Ethics:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1003/v11/pensumliste.xml
Logics and Philosophy of Language:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1004/v11/pensumliste.xml
History of Philosophy:
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1005/h10/pensumliste.xml
Don't be scared if you find Norwegian terms and words there and you can always use Google Translation, please.
The books are largely listed in English. This list is for the basics as noted by lower numbers, i.e., 1xxx rather than 2xxx or 3xxxx and
so on. Enjoy! I'll add more later!
Well, I think it can. There's a difference in killing a newborn (9 months old) child vs. killing the infant of only 4 (preferably, or less) months. I also think the emotional impact is smaller the younger the infant is (0 months vs. 7 months, by the extreme).
So I have this question for you: can you provide the "age" of the infant at the time the abortion took place and can you also note if chemical abortion was used, please? Can you also supply the age of the people who took abortion (from your data-set), please? There is a definite down-side by not choosing abortion and it stems from social conditions, your own child may even choose suicide which may become hard to swallow for some. I've read about 5 year olds who have committed suicide! Don't you contemplate this?
It's about moral character! You don't need the threat of punishment to choose good. You do it out of the inherent benefits, like a fluent and happy society where people thrive and make the world better.
However, if it's a point to make it clear, there is no direct, opposite explanation. To bend/give way for the evil/bad/ethically devious can never be justified ethically. You have no ethical alternative than to suffer it and have the respect for choosing to do so. Thus, hopefully, your suffering will be revered by your contemporaries and the future, very honourably, some will say!
I just like to support this topic and the author [Frank G. Sterle, Jr.] of it!
There is today a quite dangerous environment in the face of corruption and the rest, that leaves much weight on the men in facing various threats and being the armor of the family. Men are also most likely to enter the physical fights in light of these deficiencies (of the democracy), thus as a man you can expect to begin that weightlifting as soon as possible, probably from 14 or 15 yo. So indeed, there are more blows hitting the armor today and you, as a man, are expected to deal with it which you have to!
It's incredible! It feels like we live in the 21st century technology-wise, yet with the morality of 0 CE, the morality of the original man, summa summarum, society today.
As I say today, informally and cheeky, of my nation today, that it's despotic with a skin of democracy. This can get more real than you like when you enter that strange door of society where a man stands in the skin of another, rather bloody!
Eh... cheers...
Consciousness is usually associated with organisms that have brains and even these are limited. We remain with the consciousness of people as sufficiently advanced to make meaning to us, unless you're this professional who is studying animals (with brains) and infer from their behaviour what they are thinking.
Now, possibly, enter some kind of telepathic connection (you can call it quantum entanglement or contextualism) then, possibly, enters the condition that you might/may "get some thoughts" from your interaction with stuff in nature that is not normally associated with consciousness, i.e., the planet, plants, trees, afar animals including sea-life and what have you. I must emphasise, though, that it is up to you to make sense of it and I don't guarantee a thing in this regard!
I agree with the OP to this extent: I think a confederation may be good too, in addition to a federation. Note that we also have a wide variety of international and bilateral agreements in place and that these to some extent remove the (definite) need for confederation or federation, please. Though, I wonder to what degree UN can play this unifying role to such an end. I'd also like to make the remark that ILO (Intern. Labour Org.) seems to be organised under the UN umbrella which I find to be almost "romantic".
Funnily enough, Hardtalk and BBC manage to send this program again despite having broadcasted it some time ago (months?).
As much one likes to discuss food prices and speculation and possible corruption within the WFP (World Food Programme), I'd also like to point the constant need for making contraception (esp. contraception pills) available to the African population so that Africans don't need to feel over having a sex-life and also facing the fact of 7 children in crises ridden Chad, fx., like in a report I've seen. This concerns especially famines, of course.
So why is this? Why this constant haggle over the insignificant while no movement on the large issue of world-population?
You do indeed get richer if you get fewer, in some terms, especially per capita economy, that is, it leaves room for people, it increases the manpower demand, it divides more resources to each person and lastly, the infamous unemployment can become an unimportant question where one doesn't, anymore, bother to discuss money to the unemployed and how much one should be compensated for being unemployed.
To me it seems that political science starts out broadly with learning all the political mechanisms and from there it's more or less descriptive until you arrive at the top where is only one argument left, the gun! This is the argument you can't refuse as the mob-soldiers say!
With the classical notions of science, one starts carefully with a simplified picture of science and ends in very complex apparatuses and theories.
Thus the (crudely) pyramids are reversed in relation to one another for the natural sciences as opposed to the political sciences!
[Edit, 14.02.2011:] I can, I guess, add that politics by and large builds on ethics, thoughts I possibly share with many other people. That is, out of the fundamentals of setting the morals straight by a set of rules, fx. by the 10 commandments, you begin a community, but when we are here now this may be lost out of sight as we have developed from this little, "crude" set of rules to a certain book of national laws/legislation (in Norway: Norges Lover, a red book of 800(?) pages or so, quite thick, containing both the constitution, i.e., the electives should be this and that and elected by the people so and so and by the (formally) King's approval, and then the actual laws follow). So this is it: politics is hinged on ethics (you can check with Habermas on this, keywords, symmetry, dialogue, understanding) and this can, possibly, yet not by any means by common understanding, be drawn down to my description of schizophrenia that may lead one to believe that ethics, incredibly enough, is part of nature on a fundamental level, i.e., as much as gravity, mass and time and space. Believe it or not! [End of edit.]
I'm just very impressed by the consistent performance of writers like these 4:
Stephen King
Tom Clancy
John Grisham
William Gibson
(you can possibly add Dan Brown)
We have, of course, Joanne "Jo" "K." Rowling, the star on the European Heavens (among others, but most prominently for the time being).
These have at least inspired me greatly by popularising writing and fiction in the "young" sense, i.e., providing entertainment
and thoughts as reflections of our human nature. That is, as fears from Stephen King or conspiracy from John Grisham.
I write "young", because it's not necessarily the very quality you find with the Nobel laureates, but rather explicating ideas
and making great scenarios. Thus, they are mentioned for this: popularising writing (making it accessible) and making PROFITS
from it (making the career of being an author attractive).
Also, this topic hasn't been made for its philosophical value, although it should be possible for talented philosophers to become widely read authors as well.
I think one can clearly answer "NO!" to this question simply because one fails to give a credible account on how or why the Universe should be rotating with respect to physical forces (i.e., following Newton's laws, for instance, for these laws).
Another question arises: are some of the "objects"/clusters of galaxies rotating relatively to others? This is a harder question where, also, the appropriate and effecting physical forces need to be accounted for (i.e., remnants of super-nova explosions such and such a way for instance).
Thus the exciting new enterprise arises: how to fix the objects of the Universe onto a determinate "map"? That is, how are the objects of (outer) space relating to one another with the appropriate forces described? Now, this is probably already set, but it's not so clear on how the changes take place or that, if any, are reported to a satisfying degree by the current astronomers and the current astronomy!
I think it's fair to say that abortion and all other means for not giving child births have removed some of the pressure on population overall and that giving birth now more or less follows the will of the mother (possibly also the father) and I think this in turn makes the (plausible) case for less crime since the (unwise) teenage mothers necessarily come down in numbers and that one looks to the population and finds it reasonable to have only two children rather than five.
A forced sex-with-child, i.e., sex necessarily implies giving birth to one or more children after, this pattern recurring, (and 5 more to this as an example) spurring uncontrolled population growth would surely see a world in chaos and with human values at stake as a consequence (because of all the conflicts over resources and the necessary declines and arises in population numbers).
PS: Remember that chemical abortions are available.
Why should afterlife require God as the (estranged) Other? Why can't one just as easily see God as possibly the source of previous lives, temporary stop in Heaven, this life, temporary stop in Heaven, the future life and so on?
I stand critical to a God given a negative sense or relation. Why should the world have fallen (implying a faulty God)? Why can't it just be considered the test of character and the following determination of reward in Heaven or punishment in Hell?
I'm also (along with you probably) wondering a bit about this discrepancy between being a well-off business person in the civilised world and the African (just as an example from the World today) child who dies after hardship of famine and disease only to see the 8th birthday. My conclusion is this: the business person can more easily end up in "Hell" and suffer the punishment while the African child has no particular failed duties and dies in the grace of God and goes straight to "Heaven" (for simply being a good person and without being charitable to fulfilling a requirement to hear "God's word") where I see "Heaven" and "Hell" as two (entities/)conditions in a more lawful and natural sense without knowing or being able to describe exactly how this is supposed to follow.
My view from the conclusion has at least the Good God in it and doesn't necessarily see God as either "faulty" or "unjust"! Hardship just makes you earn your ticket to Heaven more easily and I think this is logical.
I've been thinking about this myself and it's simply an anomaly to me as well. Genetic[/epigenetic disposition]? Genetic and environmental?
It's much easier to place DID, anorexia, bulimia and psychopathy on a spectrum roughly made up by the two main categories of Schizophrenia and Depression.
For you people to decide! But for the time being and with the mental health industry in the state that it's in, this mystery will endure for the next 200 years, I think, because it's not about medicine anymore, it's about social power and social scheming!
To be honest, I think the doctors who are investigating it need to put on the table results of longitudinal investigations. That is, how
the mental illness develops over the years. (Perhaps they have? Check it out.)
Secondly, I think they are a bit lousy on the description. I would have split the group into a kind of "traits" or common "properties".
Thirdly, how are they performing on the classic surveys and performance tests? What about the metabolism-results?
It may be a while longer until I buy a book on Autism, but seriousness is surely in demand if they are to get anywhere with it.
A parallel experience: I find out that there are hosts of unknown particles in Physics, yet you need to read a so-called advanced book by Penrose (Road to Reality) to find out. I think it's the same with this. There are just to many dishonest people around who don't care what it is as long as they have their "sh*ttyness" alive (and are staying in "power").
Formally quenching Brains in Vats: Fallback to behind a veil/being a Brain in a Vat as a description for knowledge. Thus I have knowledge, at least subjective, as having these impressions of knowledge from within a Brain in a Vat, possibly along with other Brains in a Vat!
1. My use of the logical symbols is one of convention.
2. The reiteration, R, is one of convention also, I think. Fitch System?
3. I could have used Propositional Logic, but the Modality point would have become less obvious. I also intend this to stand against or
in comparison with the arguments of necessary notions of Anselm of Canterbury/Alvin Carl Plantinga/Kurt Gödel.
The Ontological Argument here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument!
4. God is not some senseless entity. God does fulfill a possible description that we can have cognition of. Thus the definition. It's also important to counter the notions of a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), i.e., the unserious counter arguments.
5. I'm a Scientific Deist or God Realist on the issue of God, if it's not clear already. That is, God must have a kind of reality and must fit a certain description. Thus "God possibly exists", standing by itself, is a base assertion, one that can never win hearts and minds. Also, now the God of Modality/Possibility is a logical notion. One step up from earlier...
6. If you drop the definition or the possible knowledge entailment, then you also drop the cognition of God. You are then forced to believe in a God blindly and this is simply not my God. Also, the FSM appears again. Besides, I think most believers have an idea of what objectives their God of belief are supposed to fulfill and you, the Atheist, don't care about it, obviously. Thus, I admit no such thing as believing in a God blindly! Final!
One of my last topics for the PN forum this year is about this:
denoting the (U.S.) Americans.
Popularly speaking, Americans are the U.S. Americans. This is the collective hat for every U.S. (American) citizen.
Now, we, the Europeans, put them proper:
the U.S. Native/True Americans - Native/True American origin/ethnicity (Indians born north of the Mexican border and south of the Canadian border.)
the U.S. Euro-Americans - European origin/ethnicity
the U.S. Afro-Americans - African origin/ethnicity
the U.S. Latino-Americans - Latin origin/ethnicity (1/3 possible equivalents, see other 2/3)
the U.S. Hispanic-Americans - Hispanic origin/ethnicity (1/3 possible equivalents, see other 2/3)
the U.S. South-Americans - South American origin/ethnicity (1/3 possible equivalents, see other 2/3)
the U.S. Asian-Americans - Asian origin/ethnicity
So, fellow Europeans, although decrepit and corrupt, here we have our U.S. American buffet! Cheers! :)
[Edit:] PS: I realise you can get all sorts of funny "blends" and as time passes, you probably write it most safely U.S.
Mixed-American - Mixed origin/ethnicity. You can also make these (1 example): the U.S. Euro-South-American!
PS2: Uggghh... I've forgotten to add the native U.S. Americans. Now I've put them first! They do make up 10% of the U.S.
American population.
PS3: Uggghh... I've also forgotten to add the U.S. Asian-Americans. (By reminder of i_blame_blame.)
The main attack is on the words "Caucasian" and "White" for describing ethnicity/"race" (that I loathe to write since the "race" only applies to dogs and entirely distinct kinds of animals). So these "white" Americans now find themselves as "Euro-Americans" in the pattern of writing Afro-Americans which may come as a BLOW to some!
Now you can write to Jon Stewart and call him "Euro-American" and see if you get any response!
To give up one's moral sense, i.e., the 10 commandments, is to be a false theist! Final!
Is the set unworkable? How come? Explain, please. I see a predecessor to a modern framework of laws that is clearly expressed. Thou shalt not kill and so on... Isn't this what the most modern laws also say? That you're not entitled the judgement of putting another man to death (in private and except in cases of self-defence).
I think I can give this version:
Theists claim they can rightfully believe in God and some other.
Atheists in my opinion are counter to this claim (and the hosts of others). Some atheists even deeply resent to have a
possible notion of something extraordinary.
So in the modest view, being reasonable people, people should shut up about other people's (religious) beliefs.
What is "bge"? Beginning? Is there anyone who claims uncaused beginning? I'd like to know some references.
You might argue that St. Aquinas supposes "a prime mover", but then again this is God, God-self. When you're at the ultimate level,
I at some point might go with that (even though I now hold an eternal God or God making God!
I'd just like to write that it seems to me now that scientists try to keep up a "politically" correct picture of science where their knowledge stands as essentially exhaustive.
Thus, there are a number of "miracles"/scientific anomalies out there that are kept out of the picture of the general public. I've found one such example in Roger Penrose's book, Road to Reality, where he names a host of particles that are "up for grabs"! Be critical! Be investigative!
Just to add to this: there are clearly programmable opportunities for indexical-free language and you should be able to see this from the examples above. [input_name] for "I", [input_that_sentence-pointed-to] for "that", and so on... Even though the Hiker example comes out different, it's no problem to use the approach to the "that"-word in it, just for one example. Clearly then, there may be some kind of underlying logical syntax/code that may be applied (for better understanding to various problems in the future).
For instance, what about the possibility to provide a logic/mathematics for all things, including language and such... Although I feel saturated with the indexicals right now, it should be exciting to see where the spin-offs are going in the question of, fx., the alleged separation between belief and belief state that John Perry mentions in the end of his paper... There are probably many more to go at, for example in psychology.
I'm going to work on it for as long as there is life in me and there are paradoxes left to beat (by better explanations, primarily).
Tell me how your views on Godel advance, please. I'd like to know. I've also written some on "Godel-Incompleteness" in the Phil. of Science section.
As a short answer, one that I will edit, I can certainly say that there's no way that philosophy escapes reality. So even the philosophical arguments, whatever they are, need to be plausible (in realistic terms, otherwise they can't obtain a truth value). You can't simply write something, call it philosophy and think that it applies if it's rubbish, fantasy or whatever... There are indeed quality criteria... Brains in Vats: even if you envision a brain in a vat in a world in world type of setting, that is, it's possible to construct a brain in a vat in this world of reality (or some other), you need to show for it's absolute impossibility to always obtain "a natural death" in case of an intruder who destroys your brain-in-a-vat. Usually, brains in vats come as the idea that some God-like scientists set up the whole reality in this kind of machine (brains in vats). Further, one should show for how this can be sustained as life-form and engaging in an illusionary reality in a way that can be perceived as natural without any limitations whatsoever! I think this is both impossible and implausible and this is my conclusion. "Brains in vats" lacks the virtues to be convincing!
There's a quote from one archeologist (supporter of evolution theory) that goes like this:
If a rabbit (?, some animal) is found in the basin of some formation of some layer in Iraq (?, some place), then, surely,
evolution theory is wrong! That is, where you expect the evolution theory to be falsified, it's kept up and running!
I have taken notice of an article naming V for Vendetta, the movie, and The Open Society and Its Enemies, the 2 volumes work by Popper. I have also for a period of time been very irritated by the Paranoia issue of PN. I don't think that issue is worthy of philosophy, but a fashionable, hip piece of written junk. I'm thinking we can in common write a thread where we shape the ideal society with a premise of the current society and taking it a few years into the future. The surveillance issue is also of interest in this regard of the ideal society. So the idea is that we can do better than V for Vendetta, The Open Society .... and Paranoia issue combined. The forum is a kind of ideal in its self as you immediately get the criticism of what you write. Perhaps we'll end up with an ideal society each or we'll be able to make one great society together beating many other ideas on the subject. Here it goes!
All I hope is that Emrys Westacott's "Does Surveillance Make Us Morally Better?" is not a "chain-argument", that is we exercise better morals because we are more likely to acquire justice in case we become victims (and the potential psychopaths end up in jail). It's with pleasure, therefore, I find this article presented with Philosophy Now! And I think it lies very much in the vein of this topic.
I'm still on it and will be so for a very long time... (Political Philosophy is not so highly ranked on my pri. list.)
Besides, isn't Karl Popper wrong in comparing Nazism with the Platoist Philosopher Kings. Now that I find that Hitler virtually had no education and that the fine sentiments would be completely missing in Nazi ideology, I think Popper may be wrong. Aren't almost every politician today of university education. It's rare, and for good reasons, I suspect, that politicians today have very little education. Therefore, it seems Plato scores a fine point after all!So how do you know that you are not God or a part of God?
Ontological virtue means it has no bearing on reality, as more charitable people may get the sense of. So how are you going to prove that brain-in-a-vat has any impact on our relationship to nature? Of how we live or how we discover or how we develop the next 100 years. This is the key isssue!
Prove to me that brain-in-a-vat means something beyond Zeno's paradox, mister! Why shouldn't I be able to gather knowledge beyond the speculation of God or brain-in-a-vat? Given life's premises, we have no other choice for real! So what if we die and find ourselves in a brain-in-a-vat, still, given our (likely) past and our development in human history this far, I see no reason to not keep going the way we've used to, ie. develop science and enjoy knowledge of life!
Another point, if we end up in Heaven, are we really less justified to speak of knowledge! Of course not! Then Brain-in-a-vat... enters the same...
Addition - Friend and Foe
Bertrand Russell - Service: Principia Mathematica and the attempt to unite Logics and Mathematics
Alfred North Whitehead - Service: Principia Mathematica and the attempt to unite Logics and Mathematics and Process Philosophy, possibly
Possibly friends also:
Paul Ricoeur - Service: Fine work in Philosophy of language
Jacques Derrida - Service: Fine work in Philosophy of language
Ferdinand de Saussure - Service: Fine work in Philosophy of language
Socrates - Crime: Ignorance and "I know nothing!"
I can add 3 more people "of interest" who are possibly on the Friend part of the list. These are:
Paul Ricoeur
Jacques Derrida
Ferdinand de Saussure
They're all language philosophers and at the present I don't have the knowledge to pass a good judgment on their efforts other than being fascinated by their work to the extent they are possibly on the Friend list.
I'll add Bertrand Russell and Alfred Norman Whitehead for their Principia Mathematica and for trying to unite Logics and Mathematics as friends! Whitehead also, possibly, for Process Philosophy, although it is by and large unknown to me presently!
Also another foe: Socrates - Crime: Ignorance and "I know nothing!"
Let's speculate that Hitler has been most interested in Eugenics and a kind of Darwinism (and possibly Utopia, by the deluded Nazi mind, in the far end) and that Stalin has been most interested in Power and Control, being a control-freak. Excuse me if I pathologise these two people, but they are responsible for killing a large number, thus I draw the conclusion they must have been marked by insanity to a significant extent! Ahhh... I speculate...
[Edit, 14.02.2011:] I've added "...by the deluded Nazi mind...". I'm not particularly willing to delve on the speculation of Utopia can arise after the holocaust of people X, fx. Nazi persecution of the Jews, just in case they could have been successful in exterminating them. This is mainly because I don't think one can justify the "abjection" or that one can live with such a relatively high moral cost, i.e., the moral cost cascades through time in such a fashion that utopia can never arise, even though this is (repulsively) debateable! [End of edit.]
[Edit, 23.07.2010:] I see that you don't ignore the seeming advantage women have when it's about cancer, but that you try to point to other factors for nullifying my theory of women actually having a different relationship to their bodies in terms of feelings, making women avoid cancer in greater degrees than men, when indeed I think that most other factors are more or less the same. One should note that risky behaviour can indicate, also, such an inferior relationship to one's own feelings already in young age, ie. heavy drinking among young men. I also note that you fail to come up with the good statistics backing your claims. [End of edit.]
[Edit, 06.07.2010:] Besides, modern women and men have almost the same patterns when it comes to "smoke, drink and work". Haven't you heard about "double-working" women? Also, the smoking has come down heavily before 2001 as this set (to which the link points) is from 2001 to 2007. You should also note that cancer strikes, predominantly, the older scope of the population so the fact of heavy drinking young men doesn't have any (particular) impact. I agree to "Avoiding carcinogenic substances is the best you can achieve in the avoidance of cancer." This is not about the mental concept of "emotions", it's about neurologic signals, "feelings", in your body before cancer occurs! Thus, this writing is not about some kind of "magic" cure. No, it's about "Cancer-Prevention Measures"! So, what I try to point out, is the relation a person has to one's own feelings (in the body) and not some mental size of sensing sadness and so on. The claim is, simply, that when people care for a "natural" relationship to their feelings, they can in great parts avoid cancer. To internalise a "mechanistic body image"/"reject natural body feelings" can therefore lead to cancer/increased probability for cancer in my opinion! This should come in addition to other good advice such as a healthy diet, physical exercise and the avoidance of carcinogenic substances! [End of edit.]
I agree to some extent with your emphasis on stress, even including possibly that hazardous environment also puts stress on your body ie. being subject to carcinogenics puts a load on the body to get rid of it, lowering the "energies"/electricity to sustain the feelings that support your immune system and against abnormalities by cell life (cell division, cell breathing, cell workings).
So, I'm looking for the best range of feelings, not being below a certain value and not, possibly, being too high either.
I've been thinking that my writing is on a stage where the next step is to actually enter the field and develop techniques like making a measuring device that measures the electricity between the fingers with a person who is typically resting and calm (for steady signals) and so on (making a data bank on these data gathered from "high and low" in society.
I've been wondering if Dr. Sam Harris is right about ethics as mere psychology. I think it's plausible that he's at least partly right! (I'm also wondering if this has been said/written by myself while in the ethics semester at university in 2000.) But here it goes:
If this is not about priorities, ethically, beyond the moment Utopia takes effect, it should be plausible that ethics is merely psychology and some more! So what does morality mean as expressed by ethics if it all comes down to being a healthy and happy person? Isn't this the fact in case it is true that the natural sciences (and possibly in combination with the social sciences, incl. psych) that ethics is "useless"/not necessary as own discipline in philosophy? (I consider psychology/neurology natural science in this writing, also.) Abolish ethics in philosophy?
Now that we are able to do this, by fMRI and all the rest, shouldn't we just stick to the rules and regulations that fulfill these objectives the best? Of course, we should! Otherwise, we support what we should kill, the crime, the unethical!
If you think about it, everyone likes to discover truth, to develop, to puzzle, to play, to be curious, to make enterprises, to display themselves by who they are and their skills and knowledge in general. So, is there any mystery in determining what the obstacle is in achieving this for potentially every single person on the planet? Certainly not! And we don't need ethics to do it either!
So to end this: give me one example that require ethics to be solved! I'll answer every one of your questions within the scope of health, both phy. and men., and happiness in the scope of opportunities!
Good luck!
Metadigital writes:
"1. America sends a lot of food to countries where starvation is a huge problem. This is done out of concern for the well being
of those people. The populations of the countries that receive this aid constantly grow just above the level of food available.
Is continuing to send food to these rising populations (who are now dependent on aid) ethical?"
I think this kind of problem may be one of the simplest. Without touching the philosophical vocabulary concerning ethics, I think one should send sufficient food to food deprived populations as well as enter discussion on what is the desired population level in these areas/countries or this area/country. In addition, one may want to facilitate about changes that get the problem areas or countries out this cycle. All in all, the area of jurisdiction enter some kind of general vote on the country's future on a number of issues which are all reasonable, like a key issue of population. According to this, planning takes place to make permanent and self-sustaining changes. I mean, one has over 260 nations in the world where one country should be a good example to this area/country in question. Do I need to go further?
Metadigital writes:
"2. In a similar situation, America sends financial aid to foreign countries that have weak infrastructures. This financial aid, of
course, is given on a conditional basis. Because these countries develop an infrastructure that relies on American aid to avoid an
internal collapse, they become dependent this aid to the point of damaging their own sovereignty over their affairs. Is this an
ethical practice for America?"
The aid is all well and good! I think you are unclear on why this money damages their sovereignty. Rather (US) America should facilitate a richer financial life for this nation in addition, perhaps with the help of other nations as well. It's clear that countries that receive financial help they become dependent on, are in a situation where more development is needed and to deny this extra help is to waste resources to a deficient country, obviously! A well working country is a country that usually generates a surplus in the eyes of the world, in being hospitable, having exciting culture, generating fine industry and minds. All in all just stays healthy and being a civilised place to the world, including taking deep participation into Res. and Dev. and knowledge business (incl. education). This is also without any philosophical ethics jargon!
Metadigital writes:
3. To stop picking on America, and to illustrate a real world event that took place; A hospital is choosing between two people to
receive a new kidney. They have a list that they usually go by, but a private individual has offered $1,000,000 to be placed at the
top of the list. This rich individual is a heavy drinker and will likely die in the next few years anyway, but the money can be used
to upgrade medical facilities and benefit more people (keep in mind that this is the early 20th century!). The person who is
actually at the head of the list is young with many more years of potential life left. What is the ethical decision to make? (I'll
post the decision actually made after your reply.)
1. It's unknown whether the hospital actually needs more equipment and thus I see no definite use for the extra money: the kidney goes to the young man.
2. The other way may be that the hospital needs the equipment dearly (in life saving terms and not plastic surgery) and may help 10 extra people every year from dying (far outweighing the young man's extra years). Thus: the kidney goes to the rich man. It should also be noted that is without corruption and that the transplant list is without absolute rules! This is also without any philosophical ethics jargon!
There you have them. You may object by saying this is ethics and thereby philosophy, but I say of course that this is ethics solved by purely scientific considerations! There is not one word that pertains to philosophy in them!
From my blog, today, https://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/:
"Amnesty International is a disservice to the justice system in Europe! My investigations into the mental health industry make
it evident that Amnesty International is nothing more than a political tool for prejudices to the developing world and doing
minimally for ensuring the well-being of Europeans at large (Amnesty International is indeed comparable to Human Rights Watch
in USA). I sense Europe's justice system is cringing by its incredible naivity and sympathy to criminal lunatics, effectively
forcing the common European to make "gang deals" on "the street".
I hereby call for new investigations into what this overt and naive sympathy implies to the justice system, people's sense of security and the preventive effect the actual punishment of today has on crime! One may also look into capital punishment versus life-long imprisonment while one is at it! It's also worth noting lethal needle injection versus shooting and the guillotine versus the electric chair, the shooting and the guillotine being the better options in my opinion! Heartily yours!"
One should stop desensitising people of crime like it doesn't matter. Crime is incredibly tweaked, in Europe, to favour criminals in terms of relaxed punishment and I think Amnesty International has played a central part in promoting this view. This may be the time to consider building a new organisation in Europe for promoting a better justice system that cares more for crime-prevention!
The Goatism fails to be anything at all, even though the mantra "Goatism" may be a good one in that zen-sense!
A funny note:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201239/http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm
"A=A=A=A: anything equals anything equals anything. This is the way the reactive mind thinks, irrationally identifying
thoughts, people, objects, experiences, statements, etc., with one another where little or no similarity actually exists.
Everything is everything else. Mr. X looks at a horse, knows it's a house, knows it's a schoolteacher. So when he sees a
horse he is respectful."
I must say it relates!
Just one question:
How can you definitely tell if a brain-damaged person is indeed limited as person from a soul? Isn't there a
chance that the "soul"-world is in some senses always perfect and that the limitations of the body or brain
not necessarily apply there?
Epistemology of Logics should be finished at the descriptive level before it enters the logical structure.
Thus a pink Sphinx, being a toy figure for children exists because there is such a toy, while the mythical Sphinx does not exist other than as a concept (of language, myths).
It's therefore wise to keep the Logical structure apart from the Epistemological task (that's completed before the assumptions enter the logical structure/argument).
I suspect there is a paper about to be published from the Philosophy Institute of University of Oslo.
Davoz writes:
"(1) Taking account of currently live topics in epistemology, why would one suppose that any specific epistemological
problem can or should be seen as "finished" (e.g. whether perceptions count non-inferentially as a priori, whether "justification"
is necessary)? This seems analogous with the idea of the possibility of a "completed" ideal science."
The point is that your assertions containing epistemology is your responsibility apart from the logical argument/structure.
Quote:
"(2) A specific object given to a child, through normative language use, may have a name ("pink Sphinx") conceptually
equivalent to that of an imagined object (the "mythical Sphinx"). The ontological status of the toy object
and that of the naming can be seen as different, but the argument from causation is surely wrong, suggesting that
the concept is communicable because the toy is perceptible. How so?"
The ontology of the toy is definite as opposed to the metaphysical Sphinx which according to the myth may be able to do a lot of stuff, like flying, very much unlike the Sphinxes of Egypt.
Quote:
"(3) I don't follow the argument about logic. Logic concerns relations, and can be surely be relevant only to
propositions, not to "individuals" (e.g. "mythical Sphinx", "toy pink Sphinx")?"
It's a small task to go from "individuals" to propositions, like "mythical Sphinx" nicely turns to "there is a mythical Sphinx"! Are you playing with me? Don't you think I understand what I write?
Besides, the OP relates to three articles from AP Martinich's book of Phil. of Lang. and these are B. Russell's "On Denoting", PF Strawson's reaction to it and K. Donnellan's Reference and Definite Descriptions (1966) in that vein. I'm uncertain about this third article, but I'll make it clear to you later. [Edit2, 13.08.2010:] You can also add Quine's (Ch. 1:) On What There Is (from From a Logical Point of View). [End of edit.] [Another edit.] Except Quine, these articles file under Reference and Descriptions by Martinich. [End edit.]
[Edit, 12.08.2010:] You may also think that Logics is all about symbols, but what I like to point to is the Universe of Discourse of Logics that may be easily overlooked by some, ie. beginners, popular readers. So the Epistemology point enters here, UoD. I'll clarify in greater detail as this may look a little confused and blurred. [End of edit.]
I'm not a follower of the meta-anything (except Metaphysics, but this is clearly an own field as physics don't speculate over God and other metaphysical themes). Rather I put it in general philosophical considerations that's applying in every field concerned. In the case of metalogic then I write it as being logical considerations that apply to every logical consideration regardless of logical branch. So, if this can be a logical consideration that applies to every logical branch? Possibly! As far as I can see, yes!
It may very well be the case, but I like to view this in relation to the above mentioned articles...
(PS: I'm about to look over the articles "shortly" to widen the clarification and definitely come across with some point unless the whole thing proves futile...)
[Edit, Unsp.:] I've added "K. Donnellan's Reference and Definite Descriptions (1966)" and "Except Quine, these articles file under Reference and Descriptions by Martinich". [End edit.]
[Edit, Unsp.:] (PS2: I'm also wondering whether I'm wrong in thinking it may go into the Logics section, but give me some time and let me make the attempt/case. (Nevertheless, I do think that most of the lines written so far actually do fit into the Logics category.) [End edit.]
From my website: http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#AAI:
Quote: "The origin that is the basis of your parents including genetics (the framework/seat of the consciousness), the
persistence of the processes in the consciousness, and the history of this consciousness are that which makes up the
Identity of a Person in Metaphysics. You can also consider identity like the previous identity and one day when you're
in the next day. Thus it follows. Alzheimer's disease may question a number of issues. What do you think about split
personality? What is the identity of a person that suffers from Alzheimer's disease? The things that have been mediated
over and should be mediated over."
One should also note what Richard Taylor writes in his "Metaphysics" 4th ed. It says from the section of The Problem of
Personal Identity Over Time, p. 128:
Quote: "Instead we can say that a person undergoes constant change and renewal over the course of time, such that he is
in some respects the same today as he was yesterday and in some respects different, that over the course of sufficient
time he undergoes a total renewal such that he shares no cell or particle with a former self long since past, but that he
is nevertheless the same person in this relative sense, that he grew out of that former person."
You can at least balance these two texts and think it over. You can also take note of:
Wikip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_%28philosophy%29
Stanford Encycl. of Phil: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/
I write this as a response to the article in the PN issue 63 and also as an independent discussion of Gettier's counter-examples (to the tripartite definition of knowledge). These counter-examples can be generated in a number of ways and indeed, Jonathan Dancy reports one from the world of tennis and Wimbledon.
In detecting the Higgs boson for example, it is clear that yet we utilise the HDM we have only the theory of Standard Model (save the competing theories) to go by. The question is when we are justified in believing in Higgs boson and thus completing the Standard Model.
The Gettier counter-examples discuss this where we are forced to look at the justification in the tripartite definition of knowledge. Obviously, many feel that when they are justified in believing a proposition p then the proposition p is indeed fact. If it isn't a fact people would say they are not justified after all.
The message of Gettier counter-examples is that we may be wrong still even if we are justified in believing a certain 'fact' p' despite the real fact p is being something else.
Fact p is usually secluded from us to see. The usual account of knowledge gives that
1 Fact p
2 Person a believes fact p
3 Person a's belief of fact p is justified
There is nothing that prevents us from assuming 'fact' p' as fact p is isolated. This is the message of Gettier counter-examples.
As a remark, Maurice Merleau-Ponty points out that we are examining "the joints (of the body of) nature" in which we ourselves exist.
I have tried to make a resolution myself in epistemology that I call The Transmission Argument. It can be found here:
http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html. I posted the argument in the old forum but strangeness has overtaken the
old site (eh.. porn).
Philosophically, we are held apart from truth and true knowledge as we have ever been.
Anyone who has views on Gettier Counter-Examples or would like to comment on what I've written or would like to discuss the article from PN issue 63?
The percentage of the variables is given as a score of the mean of people OR the score of your average working day effort OR the score of your combined effort through the whole life facing a certain problem OR a mean as it is turning out as an assessment of the research performance.
Much of psychology results are given in probabilistic terms and these, hunch, data-material and data-integrity or fit, variables are meant to work in the same way but at varying sizes of groups down to the very personal level.
I figure that most people would put a strong emphasis on justification and as a part of it data-integrity or fit would almost always be one of the issues in that justification, the degree to which they were involved in the situation when examining a problem.
I coming back to Scott Sturgeon's paper later. Thanks!
Chance is being measured. From the non-existing person who obtains knowledge of all (100%) to the equally non-existing person who tries to figure out if he knows something at all (0%).
It can be worth to check out Frederick F. Schmitt and his view (possibly his invention) of Epistemic Integrity. He writes about it in "Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism" (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy) 2001 by Hilary Kornblith. He has the section 8 in this book. Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0631221069/ref=sib_rdr_dp.
More of Frederick F. Schmitt's works here:
Knowledge and Belief (Problems of Philosophy) 1992 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0415033179/ref=sib_rdr_dp
Truth: A Primer (Focus) 1995 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-Primer-Frederick-F-Schmitt/dp/0813320003/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2
Again the same from his CV: Truth: A Primer, Series: Focus, ed. Keith Lehrer and Norman Daniels, Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, 1995, pp. xi + 251. I seem unable to identify this work by a bookstore. You can try yourself.
These should be the most relevant, I suspect!
[Edit, 01.07.2010:] There is now a better link to the The Transmission Argument, here: http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#TTA. Last addition to it has been March, 2006 (05.11.2009 for definition of Integrity). A small note: while Frederick F. Schmitt writes about integrity as a kind of virtue, I think of it as kind of (natural) property about you and your relationship to your data (and to the end-point of investigation, being a kind of revelation of new data, possibly, a discovery). To formulate a "law" is rather a matter of aptitude to one's own skill in relation to what you have before you and thus not so much a kind of "Integrity" in my sense. If you however, become well acqainted with your data, have a great "Integrity", then you may generate this "law" more easily. Thus this "law"-making may be a kind of "Integrity"-issue in this sense. [End of edit.]
Another remark on Schmitt's Epistemic Integrity which I find is used to tear away credibility from the Perspectivists who most people, I believe, see as unserious people in Epistemology. Therefore Epistemic Integrity destroys Perspectivism. In Schmitt's perception, by my interpretation, a charge is being made against unreasonable or dubious epistemologists claiming the Perspectivism position.
Epistemic Integrity then has to be decided among a larger community for it to be credited to a person or to a proposition that's held by this person. One should remember that Integrity in English most often equals Honesty and telling the truth. Thus from the ethical Integrity to epistemic Integrity, Integrity enters the meaning of honesty and reasonability concerning epistemological views/propositions/claims!
Therefore, as Schmitt's Integrity is designed to remove Perspectivism as a credible position, I design Integrity as a property of your own relation to research data that, in my opinion, leads to certified and irrefutable knowledge! Not that this is important to write, but it seems to me that Schmitt is using Integrity differently than I do, hence I cite Merleau-Ponty differently than he does in that same respect. My description is also significantly different from his and I think it's plausible that these 2 different interpretations can be given Epistemic Integrity. You can think about this for yourself... I leave it at that for now, possibly until the purchase of Kornblith's book (2001).
[Edit, 08.07.2010:] Various comments:
You only need one of the percentages to be 100% and the other two to be to the least degree to have this certified and irrefutable
knowledge! But then again, I've not been wrong in writing 100% on all three of them and claim the same! That I'm writing this now
can't be held against me in my opinion.
You should also note that the two sentences or lines, "2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p" and "4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for", are redundant in the strict sense and that they are mostly added for extra sense, explanatory impact, that may enable people to have more use of this information. All this should be obvious!
Thus this kind of Epistemic Integrity is not a virtue in this context. It's a requirement.
The transmission is, of course, that fact p enters your mind and that you are able to justify this notion of fact p entering your mind. Thus, the transmission should be very clear!
The Transmission Argument has been my line of thought ever since I've started to investigate epistemological circumstances and eyeing the possibility to express it in words as I've now done! This is the reason for this writing's title even today when it may just as well be "Epistemological Integrity as Decisive Property"!
There's a record of additions by RSS here: http://www.t-lea.net/rss.xml, with these additions being, 7. juli 2010 09:45 CEST and 3. juli 2010 16:55 CEST. [End of edit.]
I've now been reading some of Schmitt's article in Kornblith, 2001, and it may just be that Schmitt's version and mine are compatible. By the way, he still defeats perspectivism and this may also be a different kind of perspectivism than any absurd version, pending on a kind of reflective epistemology. It may not be so bad. I think he mentions "objective" epistemology too, but without going to my lengths of undergrad. stud. cockiness of "certified and irrefutable" epistemology.
I'll see if I can balance my version against a more thoroughly read and charitable version of Scmitt.
Let me say this straight away and without ambiguity that I hold the position of the Scientific Form of Indirect Realism and if it's possible to bend in Perspectivism in one form or another, it may be okay too, but the kind of reflective mode of Perspectivism fits better with being a stage toward the Scientific Form and obviously for aquiring in a infallible way, this "fact p". That is, using this reflection for devising and moving toward solution in the more complex epistemic situations, esp. research. This reflection being a temporary stage in this situation. Thus, finally, it seems to me that Perspectivism is doomed to fail in more simple epistemic situations.
There have been some editions to this posting.
Later, there are two special quotations that I like to bring forth from his paper in this Kornblith book.
So as much as I have my Epistemic Integrity as natural property as the crucial 4th criterium, one can point to Frederick Schmitt as having Irrefutable Reliability as the crucial 4th criterium, or to make the whole thing ridiculous, the crucial 3rd criterium of Irrefutable Justification to which the Gettier- arguments will not bite!
(Stanford Encycl. of Phil. suggests a 4th criterium of De-Gettier-ing, the removal of possible Gettier counter-arguments that may defeat the assurance of knowledge or truth or what you will, getting to the objective.)
Just in case, every "soul" carries energy, this energy is detectable by infra-red imaging or something thereof when this is set in a very cold chamber/laboratory and finally the being that's loses its body and becomes a bare "soul" is a rat or an animal of lower denomination (I like elephants) then it may be possible to prove the "soul" as an alternative to Dr. Sam Parnia and Dr. Pim van Lommel!
What do you think? There's a clear logical structure to this procedure and it's no problem to set it up! Now, this probably shouldn't go (into the webpage, on my site) into the science section, but I'm such a daring person!
Some fun from Wikip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul:
"Research
Duncan MacDougall (doctor) determined the soul weighing 21 grams based on the average loss of mass in the six
patients within minutes or hours after death. In his book Consilience, E. O. Wilson took note that sociology has
identified belief in a soul as one of the universal human cultural elements. Wilson suggested that biologists need to
investigate how human genes predispose people to believe in a soul.[page needed]Daniel Dennett has championed the idea that
the human survival strategy depends heavily on adoption of the intentional stance, a behavioral strategy that predicts the
actions of others based on the expectation that they have a mind like one's own (see theory of mind). Mirror neurons in brain
regions such as Broca's area may facilitate this behavioral strategy. The intentional stance, Dennett suggests, has proven so
successful that people tend to apply it to all aspects of human experience, thus leading to animism and to other
conceptualizations of soul.[69]"
Footnote 69 is "Daniel Dennett. "The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity". http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/selfctr.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-03."
The 21 grams assertion/finding is just hilarious! Is it true? Booohhhhhh!
I think I can "assert" that intelligence is about the ability to accomplish tasks and thus a rock is not subject to such a notion.
However, there are probably infinitely many (small) variations you can do over intelligence if not operationalised intelligence or a kind of I.Q.
The fact that the rock "sits still" is illusionary because it can't do anything else, actually!
If you operationalise intelligence to be something, certainly an expression of intelligence, then within this operationalisation there's also objectivity I think because everyone can do this test and compare. This should be almost like running a 100 meter (a distance of convention) and see who the best is.
But, but, but I believe rocks are created so that we can walk the earth... Voila, the ground is sooo good to walk on...
If God indeed created the Universe and the Earth in it, it is truly an omnipotent task to accomplish! God is therefore omnipotent?
But is this anything omnipotent? No, of course, it's just to make that wave with the hand and all is good! Indeed, it's just something your neighbour can do!
Impenitent writes:
the Aesthete beats the Ethicist
it's rock and roll
-Imp
No! No! No! They are not necessarily in opposition and as you probably know, the development possibly from child to adult is, by Kierkegaard, always Aesthetics below Ethics below Religious that should make a fine, consistent line of thinking! Always... always... always...!
Happy reading! Happy thinking!
PS: I've read one or two smaller works of Kierkegaard, but I can't properly recall the name(s) or the core content!
"Non-existence exists" is not self-contradictory! If you look into an empty room, then you can surely say that the non-existence of objects exists in this room!
[Edit, 10.06.2010:] Just to make a small clarification. "Non-existence-in-its-entirety exists" is indeed self-contradictory. If absolutely nothing exists then nothing exists. It's fairly straightforward. Although, I think that exactly what exists speculatively and theoretically and what does not is a good activity in many respects. Yet, it's enough to point to the laws of physics and state that something can come out of something and nothing comes out of nothing! This is it! [End of edit.]
This is not fallacy of composition because I'm just considering the non-existence of objects in a defined space-time or either. It's almost like pointing to an empty set which may be important so as to move on from what is empty, presumably, area of investigation. It's a place or span where you will not find a thing. Also this is not about "the absolute" (at least in the Newtonian sense). So if this is the consequence, that you can't point to an empty set according to yourself, then surely you must be great!
Just interested, is one a hermit if one lives in solitude and communicates on this forum?
I think one should focus on the existence of one or more Gods whatsoever. To ask if a God is ours is stupid, I think, but then again, the author is probably an atheist? No?
I think that it's unwise to call it "subservience" because Obama, for a historic change and clever leadership, acknowledges several world powers and that several places on earth are important, incl. Saudi-Arabia!
This is a significant change for the better and makes USA look good on the world stage. Rather than being a commanding "dog", it's now cooperating with or networking with the rest of the world which may very well pave the way for a more respectful, peaceful world! Hurray for Obama!
I assert the opposite: money is good because it brings order to society and makes it more fluent!
If the categorical imperative (by Kant) isn't taken seriously then it becomes a hypothetical imperative?
I've been making quotes or aphorisms myself for some time that I've posted in the "great quotations" section, twitter and my website(s) under (Comfy) Ident. You can find my website under my profile.
Noooo!!! There are ideas that Black Holes contain proton stars and this theory is much better!!
Besides, it's unclear to me what these smaller Black Holes are meant to be comprising...
No, smaller and smaller Black Holes are indeed a mystery! Also, does it not take a certain critical mass to make a Black Hole in the first place?
It's just that Halal implies that this food is good for Muslims. Atheists have no such problems therefore there's no special marking for them. Even the Jews can probably quickly decide over its Kosher status, no problem for them either. Thus Halal marking... (Christians are also good with most.)
Goodbye to determinism! Here: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3637!
Aren't we in control? Who can explain the "miracle" of consciousness?
On the normative, Hitler should have been assassinated before he came to power! There is certainly no requirement to cope with social reality at all costs!
About Hitler's evil:
"Hitler came to power in 1933 and "Kristallnacht (German pronunciation: [kris'tal,nart]; literally "Crystal
Night") or The Night of Broken Glass was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany and Austria from the 9th
until the 10th November 1938."
And then you have the claim of other states like Austria and other areas! Finally it came to war against both Poland and UK the 1st September 1939.
There should have been good opportunities between 1933 and 1939. I remember seeing this picture of Hitler in military clothing sitting by a table, surrounded by standing, crowded people all around! I just dream about sticking a gun out from between two people and making some good 2 9mm pops right in the face and the brain, both being hit twice!
What a change of events it would have been!
I think this is pretty obvious. If the right punishment is provided proportionately to the crime and people are given proper and honest information, it should be very much possible.
i blame blame writes:
"But if neither intellectual memory, nor genetic memory is transferred in a reincarnation, what exactly is? Personal
identity is based on memory and possibly some inherited physiological factors."
Who knows? What if it's that subconscious shred that makes your "soul" to a "soul"? Possibly then, what we're trying
to identify may be very small and very elusive!
Congratulations, Rick Lewis and the team for delivering issue 79!
I've already taken an interest in A Kripkean Argument For Goatism here: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4470.
It's theme this time is not exactly my street, but it looks very nice like the previous issues!
I also like to advise people to log in and have the reading online as it's now THERE! Perhaps, it's more practical too,
browsing through the articles while surfing other interests on the net and also doing background checking!
I don't want to make the impression of being unserious and this is indeed a classical question and a definite mystery in the case of Dualism if it's ever to be proved/determined.
I think, as one can say that the mind/soul is located in the pineal gland, one is equally justified in equating the mind with the whole of the body as far as it's alive and all of the brain as long as this is healthy. Finally, the mind/soul can be equated with one's being, holding it as unnecessary to investigate further in so far as it is a serious investigation. A mortal wound is still a mortal wound and death is still death.
The real focus should be to make the first few good steps: prove/determine a possibility for a separate mind/soul to exist outside the traditional physical body whether temporarily or eternally as afterlife. I suggest the Van Lommel studies can be a good beginning and possibly adding all cases reported in medicine by a kind of MRI-confirmation secondarily and tertiarily getting "informal" accounts also by MRI-confirmation. Then it's just to build your database and be prudent on the evaluation.
There may be indifferences due to insanity...
There may also exist slight cognitive deficiencies in some people.
Generally, I think (reasonable) people can agree by making a plausible case for their view(s).
This stuff of Impenitent refers to the 70s and possibly into the 80s. But at these times, the impoverished and of low social esteem suffered all sorts of wrongdoing from state-managed programs!
What about now, 2010? It seems most is good (affluent parts of the world)!
Yes, no-one..., I suspect. (Possibly except for some with Down's Syndrome, but that's for health reasons and I don't think it really applies.) Again "there no such thing as people being bred like dogs, therefore there is no such thing as a human race". Why bother with Eugenics then? If it's only a matter of personal selection, I see no problem.
I wonder a little about that too, but then again do they trash the 10 commandments? I doubt it. The NT must be a kind of a new era for the Christians that's added on top of the OT.
I've been at this forum since 2004 and from the relaunch since 2008 (from a break in 2007, going up again in Oct. 2007).
The reason my introduction doesn't appear is due to the relaunch and with it new software from pHpBB (look to the bottom of the page). This new software required everyone to log on again anew and the whole forum started from blank again, needing to be filled with content again. So here we are! In good spirits together...
A little about myself: I've some work experience and 3 years of studies from university, being enrolled in '99 to '00 and
taking single subjects from 2007-2009. You can check out my CV here (only in Norwegian, but you may get the picture):
http://t-lea.net/CV_for_Terje_Lea.html.
Here it is: "Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Hellos"
"I guess I greet the forum with some of Kant which I usually refers to as The Crossroads, simply:
"Nowhere but in the principle of the will, with no regard to the ends
that can be brought about through such action. For the will stands,
as it were at a crossroads between its a priori principle, which is
formal, and its a posteriori incentive, which is material; and since
it must be determined by something, it must be determined by the
formal principle of volition, if the action is done from duty - and in that case every material principle
is taken away from it."
- Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I. Kant, Michael L. Morgan's
Classics of Moral and Political Theory."
"Logics
Epistemology
Ethics
Language
Metaphysics
Philosophy of Mind
Theory of Science
It is all a show!
Regards,"
It's good to have a computer file for such things, a little noir!
May I suggest that the Emperor may want to increase cultural virtues, incl. science, rather than seeking the expansion of the empire (and thereby war).
What you write looks incredibly similar to Thomas Paine. Are you influenced by him? One of his quotes goes like this: my religion is to do good!
"What Mary didn't know" by Frank Jackson in (ed.) Rosenthal, David M. The Nature of Mind 1991 ISBN 0195046706.
I like to point out this article. I have found two links that are useful:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/what-does-mary-learn-30653.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marys_Room
Now, the argument doesn't make you some novel statements. Generally, your attitudes toward physicalism and qualia and dualism will remain the same before you read the article as after.
I do not think the article makes any essential statement. Mary is locked up and learns something new when she is released. This is obvious even if it only states a category error on part of the argument. But from her view with a complete physicalist black-white account, is there anything essential to learn? I do not think so! Nevertheless, she will never learn the actual point of view of another person.
The article does well in dealing with the views of Paul M. Churchland.
In the end, I am inclined to agree with Daniel Dennett.
Quote:
"Daniel Dennett argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white
room to see the color red.[3] Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge
would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "qualia" of color. Mary would
therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that although
we cannot conceive of such a deep knowledge, if a premise of the thought experiment is that Mary knows all there is to
know about color, we cannot assume that we can fathom or even describe such knowledge or that such knowledge doesn't exist."
Source: Wikipedia.
a_uk writes:
"Is Dennet, et al, saying that she will not gain a new experience here, i.e. experiencing Red? Are they saying that
she already knows what Red is without experiencing it?"
Mary has the intimate scientific explanation of the colour Red. Indeed, they are saying that she knows Red without
having experienced it.
I guess you can equal it with a thousand experiments of how it is like walking on the moon. In a while some will say that the one who goes through these experiments will eventually have a good idea of what it is like to walk on the moon. The article on the other hand says that there is a certain quality that is lost and that this quality matters a lot!
Wootah writes:
"America lost, but freedom won. Domino effect was thwarted and countless harm across Asia ie: look at North Korea
was averted."
I very much agree with this.
There's Something About Godel by Francesco Berto is not a book for introduction to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem!
As it says: "The title takes seriously Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, who, in their classic book Godel's Proof, have claimed that such a proof is an "amazing intellectual symphony.""
Another quote: "The second part is thoroughly and unashamedly influenced by Godel's Theorem: An Incompleteness Guide to Its Use and Abuse" - 2005/Torkel Franzen. I'm heavily sceptical to this kind of book that is best left to people who like to read about Godel and all its funny contexts.
[Edit, 16.08.2010:] By "heavily sceptical" I mean that application of Godel's Theorem should be done by certified Logicians and that exposing stupidity (made by others) has very limited use. I've applied some speculation concerning Godel by asserting "Godel Incompleteness" for this particular incompleteness and also suggest that Godel's Theorem (under Phil. of Religion) may suggest the impossibility to get knowledge of God no matter what and that it's reasonable that we don't know God even if God does not exist! Shoot at me all you want, but I'm not serious enough to be criticised in such a book by these two issues until they are dealt with by this certified Logician or these certified Logicians as serious (and valid) claims/concerns. I hope this relieves you of this particular "scepticism" (because I'm not sceptical to the work of Godel whatsoever unless I can find a good angle to attack from and make it valid/plausible from this certified Logician's point of view, implying that I might become a certified Logician in the far future, hypothetically! [End of edit.]
The book also assumes the knowledge of Typographical Number Theory as it appears in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. So, I guess that it's recommended that one buys both Hofstadter's book and Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman's book.
So I'm disappointed with this book in the way it presents the Godel's Theorem because I've expected that it would present the logical structure and the logical proof in its entirety and together rather than the scarce logical notation that's spread everywhere in the first part of the book.
So it's half seriousness and half comedy, you can take a look yourself, but for myself, I'll be looking for a better presentation to the G. Theorem and throw a glance to this book to see how this review justifies or needs correction to bow for its virtue.
At least I don't like the set-up in comparison to another excellent Logics book: The Logic Book 4th ed. Bergmann, Moor and Nelson (2004).
I also note that Richard Jeffrey touches on it by his Formal Logic - Its Scope and Limits 3rd ed. (1991).
(Chapter 8 and Chapter 9, specifically)
By me, from http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#OGTI. Over Logics and Philosophy of Mathematics.
Quote:
It's my opinion that Godel's Theorems on this matter make either unreasonable assumptions on axioms or try to say too
much, particularly on a system's axioms which may themselves, ultimately be hinged on a nature of infinity. It seems
strange to me that Godel's "Incompleteness" is about not being able to prove the axioms from within the given system.
In my opinion, every "idiot" goes only for consistent and Godel "incomplete" systems. This should be clear! I see no
problem with the descriptive power of this system as a consequence of Godel "incompleteness".
If Godel's two theorems are to kick in, the human viewpoint would have to be completely different and the ontological
status of infinity soundly removed, but this is clearly not the case today.
The theorems of Incompleteness should thus be renamed Theorems of Non-Self-Reference or Theorems of Non-Tautology.
Drawing from the Philosophy of Science, I see the creation of systems like non-Euclidean geometry and Fuzzy Logic, being only two examples, as sliding in nicely with existing systems and this should also be kept in mind when you regard the whole story of various systems through the course of human evolution.
(Wild) questions:
Are the Godel theorems of incompleteness contradictions? Are they begging for the impossible, implicitly?
Are the theorems controversial?
What kind of system is it the theorems ask for?
I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive
tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?
For educational purposes: How do you build something without having a world to build something in first? Why question the building materials you've selected when you're making a building? How do you prove your "Universe of Discourse"? I sense there's something "sick" about imposing a requirement of being able to prove the establishment of the world that's going to support your descriptions. What I'm saying is that Godel's "incompleteness" is negligible as opposed to other possible meanings of "incompleteness". Originally written 07.02.2010 and 11.02.2010.
What do you think? I'm thinking it's a small victory to identify the Godel's "incompleteness" as just that kind of incompleteness and not the "ordinary" incompleteness that "normal" people think of.
[Edit:] Isn't there a possibility that Hilbert's 2nd problem is resurrected by naming the kind of incompleteness Godel presents as Godel "incompleteness"?
Hilbert's 2nd problem is to "Prove that the axioms of arithmetic are consistent."
[Edit2:] I'd like to add that Godel's "incompleteness" can be combined with Tarski to be Tarski-Godel "incompleteness"-"undefinability"! This point is modified thanks to the reading of Raymond Smullyan on Wikip. where Smullyan refers readers on to Tarski in being fascinated by Godel! Although being uncertain about both, I'm now on some material of Godel, at least, and work will continue.
Added 17.03.2010, Hilbert's 2nd problem:
I also find these 2 possible interpretations of Hilbert's 2nd Problem. The first is the one that is answered by Godel
that axioms can't be proved by the system they establish, but the 2nd one is that the scope in some future may be prove
to be inconsistent by the very application of these axioms. I've gotten the word that one of Euclid's axioms has been
either proven to be false or to be excessive and it's in this line of thought I'm thinking of the 2nd interpretation
of Hilbert's Problem and it's possible resurrection.
I'll look deeper into it. Hopefully, this may be a good example. Either way, I think the Riemann alternation from traditional Euclidean geometry provides an angle to this Tarski-Godel issue in light of Hilbert's 2nd Problem.
Is there any possibility you can get something definite from a mathematician friend? At least, I'll investigate more thoroughly.
Raymond Smullyan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_smullyan Note this: While a Ph.D. student, Smullyan published a paper in the 1957 Journal of Symbolic Logic showing that Godelian incompleteness held for formal systems considerably more elementary than that of Godel's 1931 landmark paper. The contemporary understanding of Godel's theorem dates from this paper. Smullyan later made a compelling case that much of the fascination with Godel's theorem should be directed at Tarski's theorem, which is much easier to prove and equally disturbing philosophically.
Then:
The specific Tarski "undefinability": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_indefinability_theorem All of the
text on this page should be relevant.
And the doors open...
I'm thinking about adding this to my website that takes my thoughts further on the topic and my angle to it:
(I've visited Wikip. on Tarski some time ago and then it says that Tarski has proved both geometry and algebra to be both complete and consistent. The page seems heavily edited today, 02.07.2010 and it doesn't say so anymore. So, this is a pause for me and an angle I need to investigate if I'm to get somewhere with my writing on this. This is just a notice for what follows.)
* Geometry - Complete and fulfills all descriptive tasks.
* Algebra - Complete and fulfills all descriptive tasks.
* Arithmetics - Incomplete and fulfills all descriptive tasks (yet missing its Godel "completeness" by Tarski).
Further:
* Language - Incomplete, I think, and fulfills all descriptive tasks (yet missing its Godel "completeness" by Tarski).
* HDM and science - Incomplete, I think, and fulfills all descriptive tasks (yet missing its Godel "completeness" by Tarski).
Also, in the light of all this, we have the issue of computability. Can everything be computed? Can one set up a complete computer system that replaces the human being as the scientist and what have you, except its functioning of consciousness? What is "completeness" or "incompleteness" in this regard?
This also goes for the semantic/syntactic divide. If we can replicate the human reasoning by computing, then what is left of this "semantic" ability?
It should be exciting to see how this develops, but it will demand quite a lot of effort and time.
Well, project is ongoing. Please, be patient. This is one of my weakest writings and I lack (a lot of) knowledge on the issue.
This is the update for now!
Indeed, Thomas Sowell looks very good! Thanks for bringing him up! To raise the issue that intellectuals have the "duty" to be more than an expert in their field is well done! The leading stars ought perhaps to be leading stars to the full extent. He also says in the interview that being an intellectual and go outside your domain of expertise may be to step outside a cliff.
So, so, I've taken notice of this man!
Funny to call OT a God of hate because at this point Christians get their 10 commandments (something far more valuable than the "love your next of kin as you love yourself")!
One thought: may it be that "you shall not have any other God than me" can be interpreted as "you shall worship truth"?
Because I think they give a reasonably good foundation for family life at that point in time and that they give no room for deviation!
I've voted for "No, due to both randomness and free will". This randomness may be underdetermined and thus illusionary.
I do, however, strongly believe in Free Will as explained in another thread under Metaphysics.
Unless one can prove that the consciousness including Free Will is determined, then there's more likelihood of there being Free Will because of these arguments (among others) that are referred to above.
I can't see any reason why the universe should contain randomness if or when it's completely understood. Therefore, I stay with Free Will and Determination/Fatalism as the main contenders for belief in this subject.
When making a decision, it's indeed your responsibility to collect the depth of information and priorities you want to act on! If you cut this information short, this is a decision underlying your main decision focus... So Free Will... Fall to ignorance or be Pro-active...!
Over-population, that is the greatest problem of earth-ecology today!
You can consider ecological energy-supply, transport, housing, grown foods, seafood and the rest, but aren't we overlooking the very source itself - the HUGE amount of people?
Hypothetically, if we can snap our fingers and reduce world population to 500 million, think of all the problems it will solve! All that is remaining if that happens is to travel around and collect DNA of all sorts of plants and animals.
I seriously think the world should adopt the Chinese one-child-policy. Nature is certainly relieved by that. We should organize some kind of activist group to push UN into addressing the problem. Anyone?
Food crisis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/globalfoodcrisis/
http://wfp.org/english/
The situation is probably not going to be better next year or in 10yrs or in 20yrs and we are becoming more and more people.
Here is some population data from UN: http://esa.un.org/unpp/
Where I live, the number of people is most likely going to be stable. I am also happy I live in the wealthy parts of the world as food prices rise.
The future is going to be exciting in a negative way, possibly.
I wish to actualise this topic again.
I've written two times about reducing world population as the most important ecological initiative that can be sought.
https://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1329405/half-the-population-of-every-nation-now/:
"Is it really necessary to have a Earth world with more than 100 million inhabitants? I suggest that it is not! Think
what a beautiful place it would be! With lots of nature per capita and technology to master all aspects. People would
once again become an asset, not a burden. Less populace equals more humanity. Half the population of every nation now!
Thanks." This is from Monday, 23 June 2008.
and
https://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1353431/world-population-reduction/:
"To reduce the world population should be the strongest claim made by the environmental organisations. It is amazing
that nobody is shouting it aloud. Reduce the world population by making fewer babies! The developed world should
lead the way in this matter. This may also help to get developing countries to the level where developed countries are.
Rates of reduction should be worked out by the UN and reduction rates should also reflect solidarity so that no country
stands unaffected. Thank you!" This is from Monday, 12 January 2009.
I think "half the population of every nation now" can be achieved by a 200 years plan. Please, remember that this is
only by the usual contraception (both pills and condoms), effectuating fewer babies.
It's so obvious that reduction of population will reduce the strain on every factor necessary to supply both production
to satisfy the needs and also the necessities of this 6,8 Bn population (and growing).
My main motivation for bringing this up again, is to get the UN attention to it and action on it! I've tried to posting this issue on Greenpeace Norway's Facebook-page, but there's little response even there! Who can one write to in order to generate some initiative?
BBC has written about it as The Elephant in the Room and now lately as Unsustainable Water Demand in Britain. Do you want to add information? Have your views on this subject changed?
One BBC report is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8628832.stm.
I still think the UN can be used to raise the issue and be used as an expert arena for discussion.
There are good reasons for making each country (territory of jurisdiction, also sharing culture) to impose a different regime of economic incentives, ie. support 1. as today, support 2. less than today and raise tax / impose economic sanction for the 3. and onwards. This is certainly possible in the developed countries today.
I also recall from a report from Africa (BBC or CNN) that one could encourage fewer kids for families, by promoting the message that women who have fewer kids become more happy, are likely to gain higher education and be in greater control of own life.
Conclusion is that this may look good for both developing and developed countries. On with condoms or in with the contraception pills! Future probably wants fewer kids and more quality life!
We can still value wetland for its role in nature and being a habitat for all sorts of animals and plants and what have you.
What the user by the name weehen, is proposing is something in the line of Prince Charles of UK that we pay a utility tax for preventing the rain forests to be chopped down. So the same again: the rain forests don't exist because we can bungle in it, but rather because it represents a value to the Earth and life in general. I'm not sure if the rain forests' role in the cycle of life is properly determined yet, but it stands firm in representing bio-diversity, something we can all agree to that represents a value from the human view point as we are the caretakers and directors of the Earth!
This discussion looks lively now, thank you all for your replies and keep writing! Whatever it is in this theme... literature, news from the net or elsewhere, new thoughts or insights... it's all welcome!
John wrote:
"Undoubtedly not but I'm not going to randomly conjure a meaningless figure like the 500 million quoted in the OP."
First, the OP calls this a hypothetical number so I guess you can consider it contestable. It's not meaningless either because with this number you can plausibly argue for a diverse human population that has the ability to generate meaningful enterprises and activities of the LHC scope or whatever. This number of people also, in plentiful, allows for a flourishing "free" nature that is self-regulated to a large extent. This seems to escape your "critical" assessment.
Some historical population data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
You should note, 500 mill. people equals the level of 1500 CE (425 mill.) to 1600 CE (545 mill.) and 3,4 billion people equals the level of 1960 CE (3020 mill.) to 1970 CE (3700 mill.).
Who thinks of there being too few people in the 60s (1960-1970)? Now that we connect in such plentiful way, the question of too few people is almost incomprehensible or inconceivable, realistically speaking!
I've posted the essentials (my postings only, sorry) of this topic on WWF discussion forum and I've been referred to this link: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/population_growth/.
I think it's fair to say that most of the environmental org.s are on it, it just hasn't come into the mainstream media in a serious manner yet! I'm going to make my input where it's appropriate and we'll see where this is going!
Hopefully, people realise that country-wise discussion (and UN-wise) is the way to go about this, making people see the value of being fewer people!
IMO, there are clearly art aspects to video games, but how to exhibit? And if you sell it, does the old computer come with it? It seems kind a strange to buy video-games as art, but there's an option. You can buy the art behind the video games. Print out posters of the animated characters or so...
To write that "My view on theory of language is that language is based upon use so there is no underlying logic that will explain all instances of any particular set of words." doesn't mean "...indexicals being utterances..."
If indeed the indexical is supposed to be essential it must possible to write it! I think this is most certain. Even if John Perry emphasises the aspect of utterances, it doesn't take away "The Essential Indexical" unless he writes so!
A small thing:
chaz wyman wrote:
"The analogy is false. Truth is not a series of units to be collected."
It may be! Just as much as you might discover (if not the GMO) a green raven on this planet or another, in the past or in the future! It may be just as useful to collect data-series as discovering laws of nature. Besides, a single law of nature may also be considered a Truth and thus a part of data-series of natural laws! Yes?
You should have in mind that the scientist may have laid down a programming beforehand that may be conceived as unreasonable by this panel of tasters. Thus we are no further, necessarily, to truth concerning bitterness!
However, we can move on and map each taster on this scientist's scale and each person may get a revelation, but the objective, in its strong sense, may lie hidden forever. It depends! Fx. one of the latest Nobel-prizes concerns the nose and our ability to perceive scents. If this is to happen in respect to the tongue, we may move up the scale to Truth!
I've written elsewhere about this notion of "objective"! It's perfectly clear that you can't align yourself with the roots of the tree to see a tree objectively or that you can take some mental place within an atom as a quant to see an atom objectively. We are clearly confined to be human beings. The point of "objective" is rather this: when something is objective, it is valid for everyone. At the same time something is declared objective, it is also subject to the best scrutinies and alleged to survive these! So then, when something is objective, it is valid for all of human kind and it is timeless!
Intersubjective is used by some to be a more objective standard of conforming to what is human and that humans can only agree with one another of what is true, thus intersubjective. A more seldom interpretation is one of mediated "subjectivity" where intersubjective can mean agreement between a set of people within culture or ethnicity, for example. Or that two crazy people can understand one another, but a normal person is beyond its understanding!
Clearly then, you get the three camps, subjectivists, intersubjectivists (a kind of self-declared best objectivists) and objectivists (who usually relate the objective to what can normally be agreed upon and captured by instruments of various kinds including cameras and audio equipment)!
Personally, I find Harry Truman to be a very smart US American President through all times! Even in despite of the Truman-doctrine...
I just want to note that for kids, the bullying may be seen as a future ruin of life and a possible death threat!
It's in fact documented that kids commit suicides on the background of bullying. You should also remember that these are kids who are supposed to be full of life and optimism, startled from the wonders of life! Needless to say, suicide is therefore naturally opposite to that of the nature of being kids!
Let me just insert that the notion of "soul" is indeed religious, whether because of some romantic psychologist or not, at least by convention! There's no way that consciousness and "soul" describe the same thing by this convention!
Now that the war on terrorism is being limited to Afghanistan (with only 8 US American military casualties in Iraq in June), it should be noted that the war on drugs is a very serious business! Both in Mexico and Colombia where the main problem is exactly drugs (and drug culture?), the military is fighting alongside the police! Technically, that's a matter of state of emergency or civil unrest or civil war!
[Edit, 05.07.2010:]
Mexico: Since 1989 - "...began in earnest after the 1989 arrest of Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo who ran the cocaine business
in Mexico.[25] There was a lull in the fighting during the late 1990s but the violence has steadily worsened since 2000."
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Mexican_Drug_War
Colombia: Since 1964/1966 or possibly 1948 - "The direct origins of the current conflict are usually dated to 1964/1966, while the remote origins would at least go back as far as 1948."
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_armed_conflict_%281964%E2%80%93present%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Colombia
[End of edit.]
I think people easily overlook this fact for some reason!
[Edit, 20.08.2010:] The greatest casualty rates are right there in the agriculture/drug-growing areas of Kandahar and Helmand. Traditionally, the mountain areas (and jungles) have been the toughest areas to fight guerilla, but this is rather flat. How so? Is it Europe and USA that needs to come off the needle (of heroin)? [End of edit.]
"The instance of where scientific and philosophical methods align is that of Naturalism. Otherwise, I'm with the list that has been made by Postmodern Beatnik in his post of 01/19/09 - 07:51 PM. I'd like to add to point 1 the making of invention of fitting descriptions and what else like that of fallibilism, locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary, performative, transcendence. I think you can get far by inventing an appropriate perfect description in one of the philosophical fields that may set the course for others to follow."
"About the philosophical method: I think philosophy today is all in the mind. Maybe you can draw on the results of sciences to make indications in your description or question, however, the speculation is a central theme and innovations of new angles and ideas are crucial toward the material of philosophy. You may be able to invent new areas in philosophy, but I find that incredibly hard. I'm satisfied with the classical questions for now. One project I have been thinking about, is to make an economic index in philosophy of science where you evaluate the impact of new scientific findings and express it in economic terms. In this way you may find the answer to your precision of evaluation which may not be bad. While scientists spend a lot of time designing experiments and working with engineers in this regard, philosophers innovate and evaluate the pure ideas that may lead to actual testing or normative standards. So words, words, words, that is all there is to philosophy."
Arising_uk writes:
"As Imp points out, Science arose from the Philosophers who decided a set of metaphysical questions had been settled,
i.e. there is a world that obeys lawlike laws."
You may not even need the concept of "laws" to exist for science to be interesting and still this set-up is valid. All you need may only be regularities and consistencies... Even today one is arguing over the existence of "natural laws" and most certainly the metapysics.
There are good possibilities today, as far as we've come, for throwing philosophy overboard and sail without it while maintaining "le bon sens" for how science is to be conducted. But of course, there are other significant issues with philosophy that should be cared for like ethics and it may also, on top of this, prove time-saving to do the philosophy rather than the reverse-engineered generalisations from science.
You have, though, history on your side. It would be hard-fought to conduct science without logic for example! And I'm not bothering to speculate over the importance of philosophy in hindsight!
Not that I'm an expert, but if find striking differences in torturing kids and people in general to death for the entertainment and pleasure and being in Iraq to fight against "possible future terrorism" and indeed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the Nazi attempted genocide of Jews.
On an individual level, the torture is far more repulsive! While in these war-like situations the individual responsibility is much more obscure... Like in spraying the enemy who is taking cover among civilians, to being the simple prison guard in a concentration camp or being part of a group that by "handcuff/coercive" arrangement effectuate mass executions... Go investigate!!
Generally, I'm very skeptical to mixing the disciplines. In this case that underlying metaphysics, ie. ontology, is supposed to "govern" views in another discipline, ie. epistemology. You seem to pay little attention why physicalism (materialism is better word, I think) is chosen as a kind ontology when one's knows very well how much better the case is when you have the actual physical expression of something before you, rather than "souls" that "only Lisa Williams is able to see".
There is absolutely no problem in a physicalist who expands the investigation to look for "particles" that enable fx. out-of-body experiential views when the brain is clinically dead, but, of course, the physicalist's kind of view must be to look for particles as "carriers" for this kind of view, if actually outside the body at all.
I hope you find this useful.
Think about it! Having a silly head doctor there to decide or preside over one's entire philosophical legacy because of a whisper, even an unclear one! Hey, don't get me started!
I'd like to add the following words to the English language for identifying people less of character that are also neutral in sexual orientation sense (esp. f*ggots).
These are:
lewdo
s(h*t)-lewdo
snake-lewdo
s/m-lewdo
sado-lewdo
and finally
slewdo
All of these are in the line of "weirdo" which seems to be accepted as a term nowadays. Of course, lewd people are lewd, but throwing the "lewdo" may be an easier way of getting at it!
Any opinions? This is rather informal and humourus, but should provide the language for labelling the unwanted, disgusting and intolerable. Perhaps they can effectuate a nicer society as one wants to dodge such a label...
It can be useful to both try to change the actual person by this label or other, but also label people who can become a significant adversity to you later in life - as much as you like to name people dubious or criminal.
And these words are also meant for both males and females, not only males...
I just note that a victim "of desire" has no law on one's side while the victim of violence (presumably of the assault and not a participant of a fight-club) certainly has! It's normative in most cultures that one is able to control one's desires!
Besides, just as much you can say to people that they are this or that, lewd or ugly, is indeed equally logical to labelling someone by a new word like lewdo or slewdo or whatever. There's no good reason for abandoning a richness of words!
In its bare beginning they should turn to self-control! Beyond that I don't know if there are any good options (for them).
But an important part of this is exactly to make other people to properly label and thereby warn others about these people who are unable to control themselves and who are in self-decline!
So there you go... until Utopia (or a middle-way or its opposite). There's not much to tell other than this in this respect (of these new words).
Richard Baron writes:
"They may call me names, of course, but I may ignore them."
Absolutely correct! Also, as mentioned, who says that the words of fool, stupid, trash, whore, pimp, bum, despicable,
coarse and so on aren't relevant when they are used? Of course they are!
I've chosen "Anti-Israeli wankers" because it's intolerable to call for the destruction of a nation, a people. Of course, this is probably only in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may not concern the incredibly radical views like the destruction of Israel, but I choose it still the same because this is not about choosing the existence of either people. It's about striking a fine line, finding harmony between the two!
It's both feasible and plausible that human kind is or has been capable of destroying the possibility of human life on Earth (by nuclear weapons, first and foremost). Such an act must be seen as stupid as it will definitely cut short a future of more intelligent and brighter situation for all of human kind (extremely: for this evolution or strand of human kind if not the same evolves around again). Thus stupidity is what possibly brings an end to humanity if anything! You must therefore look to it that you act intelligently!
Implicitly, by this argument, it is indeed an ethical imperative to be pro-active, to mind for your intelligence and to stand up to mental challenges so that you rise above the stupid for sure!
Dictionary.com:
stu·pid·i·ty
---/stupdti, styu-/ [stoo-pid-i-tee, styoo-]
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1.
the state, quality, or fact of being stupid.
2.
a stupid act, notion, speech, etc.
Stupidity is certainly not only the acting against one's own intentions! Stupidity is also commonly to act against one's own good by some screwed up ideas!
So, yes, my recommendation is that everybody should improve on their intelligence and piss on the Bell Curve!
The Bell Curve:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277928369&sr=8-1.
If Godel's incompleteness shows us the impossibility to prove God from the World, isn't this reasonable with our current situation of unknowing of God and our insufficiency to get there?
God is supposedly the creator of the World and is thus in a sense it's "axioms".
Maybe this is just another Godel-misuse, but you're welcome to read my comment on Godel in the Phil. of Science section.
[Edit, 17.05.2010:] There's actually a good angle of some of the same, but it takes Godel Incompleteness to be an
indicator for God's existence. You can read it about it here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/index.htm. Also, it's from 1994, so my addition here is certainly not novel, but I
only point out the possibility of God in accordance with NDNID. [End of edit.]
You can also check out this link:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/god-and-godel-34906.html
His, Eiron's, link is begun Posted May 9, 2009 - 1:18 PM (as opposed to this, 16th May, 2010) and it starts: "Subject: God and Godel I am not a mathematician or philosopher, just a simple agnostic farmer but,... Do Gödel's incompleteness theorems indicate that we can never prove or disprove the existence of the "God"? Here is a simple explanation of his theorems I found online. "Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements." ~ William Denton Logic is a branch of mathematics. So, this seems to indicate to me that I can never use logic and reason to prove or disprove the existence of the "God", no matter how much I know. Am I right? Remember, I am a simple agnostic farmer (figuratively, I hate weeding). If true then atheist are "faithists" or "believers" along with the theists"." So I go straight ahead I just call it an impossibility, but I probably owe this thread above a good deal for starting this thread myself here on PN forum... I post this for sincerety.
Apropos a square circle: Hypothetically and "crazy", if a square could be a round object, its four corners would meet at a point on this round object!
[Edit, 02.04.2010:] You can view this in the vein of Riemann who suggests/defines a curved surface triangle
to have a total of 270 degrees combined angle as opposed to the usual 180 degrees of a flat triangle.
[End of edit.]
[Edit2, 02.04.2010:] Likewise, it should be possible to define a whole square to be round like that. Although, you don't get the bent square, you get the impression of a flat surface with a point in the center and the meeting four edges that line in towards it. This circle then hides a sphere that's a Riemann-bent square. Cool? [End of edit.]
[Edit3, 03.04.2010:] Corrected grammar, ball to sphere. [End of edit.]
[Edit4, 08.04.2010:] Conclusion: I, by this, can hold two views to the best of the possibility of creating square circles, in my view, that are, of course, the 3-D object of the sphere and the 2-D object by the circle, both representing squares in their own right as far as I can envision such squares. These are contrary to traditional views, perhaps, but I still find it cool to have drawn such "crazy" objects. [End of edit.]
Montages?
Andy Warhol has made great artistic points of copying images, although varying them.
Not a criticism of the header, though, because generally I agree with it.
By the way, restoration may be seen as a kind of copying!
Science insofar it also inludes logic very much allow for meaning! Please, just look up semantics which is in logic another word for exactly meaning.
I've written two times about reducing world population as the most important ecological initiative that can be sought.
https://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1329405/half-the-population-of-every-nation-now/:
"Is it really necessary to have a Earth world with more than 100 million inhabitants? I suggest that it is not! Think
what a beautiful place it would be! With lots of nature per capita and technology to master all aspects. People would
once again become an asset, not a burden. Less populace equals more humanity. Half the population of every nation now!
Thanks." This is from Monday, 23 June 2008.
and
https://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1353431/world-population-reduction/:
"To reduce the world population should be the strongest claim made by the environmental organisations. It is amazing
that nobody is shouting it aloud. Reduce the world population by making fewer babies! The developed world should lead
the way in this matter. This may also help to get developing countries to the level where developed countries are.
Rates of reduction should be worked out by the UN and reduction rates should also reflect solidarity so that no country
stands unaffected. Thank you!" This is from Monday, 12 January 2009.
I think "half the population of every nation now" can be achieved by a 200 years plan. Please, remember that this is
only by the usual contraception (both pills and condoms), effectuating fewer babies.
It's so obvious that reduction of population will reduce the strain on every factor necessary to supply both production
to satisfy the needs and also the necessities of this 6,8 Bn population (and growing).
My main motivation for bringing this up again, is to get the UN attention to it and action on it! I've tried to posting this issue on Greenpeace Norway's Facebook-page, but there's little response even there! Who can one write to in order to generate some initiative?
BBC has written about it as The Elephant in the Room and now lately as Unsustainable Water Demand in Britain. Do you want to add information? Have your views on this subject changed?
One BBC report (on water resources) is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8628832.stm.
This is not about the reduction of population in terms of some Nazi-type scheme! This is first and foremost to educate
the World population at large and discussing the problem of overpopulation.
Fx. one can assure and work out arrangements that ensures people's part in future generations at level today. One can
envision the better societies that can take place with, say, 3 Bn people on planet Earth (hopefully about half the
2005 level).
You should also remember that all of these future people are likely to be communicating with one another, that they
are theoretically connected, something that has not been the case at this population level before (around 1900 CE).
It's not given that contraception pills are only for women!
As for the means to get there, it says clearly "Please, remember that this is only by the usual contraception (both pills and condoms), effectuating fewer babies." This should also run alongside information campaigns and perhaps it inspires a kind of social movement that helps getting people in line, making it socially/politically correct to promote a smaller population in one's own country! It should help greatly if only the UN makes a recommendation to its member states to work for smaller populations! Besides, it reads in tbieter's post, government coercion, and this suggestion is simply not a matter of coercion, but more or less the same encouragement you get for sorting your garbage by paper etc. and choosing ecological solutions in other aspects of your life. There might be arranged for economic incentives too, like decent economic support for one kid, but economic punishment for three and so on.
Does this bring light?
One thing is to write about it (here), but also write about it to other people.
Perhaps one can request the issue being written about in one's local newspaper or broadcasted by one's broadcaster like
the BBC for you in England/UK or NRK for us living in Norway.
So, I see it as half the job just to stir interest! It should has as much virtue, minimum, as An Inconvenient Truth and it should therefore be just as important. One more thing: I don't think it's useful that people feel threatened by touching the topic, I consequently like to emphasise voluntary aspects of it (having fewer babies, possibly starting today) analogous to sorting garbage by type, paper garbage to paper trash, glass and metal to the glass and metal trash and so on...
I just like to point out that if this is done on an equal basis, one doesn't need to begin negotiate about other people's rationale, one can immediately start within one's own domain to set a good example.
One more thing to this thread! This thread is a normative recommendation to my own country, Norway, and only a suggestion to other countries! I do vote and I also discuss and promote serious political issues, preferably improvements or solutions, to the contemporary political situation and environment.
One should also remember that by planes and fast trains and the internet technology, being a group of 100 million people may represent a lot more today than in 150 CE. Therefore, becoming 3,4 billion people may not feel like any shock in particular other than a lot more space that's freed up, that it's made possible a sharper distinction between countryside/rural areas and the cities. Wilderness is by no doubt becoming richer by this.
Also, by my recommendation, Norwegian-wise, it brings the number of people back to about 1900 CE which may be exciting, considering the connectedness and the modern ways to organise and regulate. I also think the intrinsic value of the human kind will rise with population reduction. Mostly getting rid of unemployment and most, if not all, of the naughty schemes people may engage in, possibly as a function of...!
As an update, I haven't seen any new initiatives, even as this should be one of the main topics of the environment movement(s). A kind of sad, really, and definitely backward!
I still think 3,4 bn people are enough to make the break if it's theoretically possible at all to escape the Milky Way and settle on a new Earth-like planet. At the same time, one makes it possible to achieve many goals of humanism or secular, cross-religious issues, like the possible well-being of all humans living on Earth.
One should also remember that making life on Earth more enjoyable for all may also speed up the science. In the long run also, it may be desirable (for the 150K years or millions of years more the Sun is supposed to shine) to arrange for most people to be happy living with enough resources available (and not as packs of rats, cramped together, eating garbage).
So strategy is by 3,4 bn that is the most sustainable, most happy, most ethical and most ecological, even then, the best in scientific sense as well!
What is the alternative to Corporatism? I can't see there is one. I read you, however, as wanting the corporations to be regulated to within a more just playingfield. Ideally, I can't believe that corporations can by law in hand stifle individuals from making their own corporation. Of course, there are hidden rules and moves/coercions that may be played by corporations. On the other hand, making new products nowadays may present bigger challenges than baking cookies in the kitchen and calling them Maryland Cookies or experimenting with consumable fluids and calling it Coca Cola. One can think of mobile phones and most other highly technological products. It's just very complex to achieve.
The best opportunity lies in the approach of J. K. Rowling and other authors who get authorship of host of ideas that they in turn can industrialise into wherever they add value. So, if you intellectually can author something deemed worthy by others there should be a good chance for you! The higher the education, the higher the intellectual range...
I think the natural-panendeistic-God created it and not chance!
Some people may get the wrong idea about the word "game". Scientology doesn't imply the word "game" in any other context than the positive, that is, I don't think Scientology condone any "game" with people's lives.
Also, I'm strictly Realist in this sense. I don't believe in any kind of "software"-God.
However, it seems that your assertions/postulations are premises that lead to your conclusion/disproof of physicalism.
It's, though, interesting how you insert will and other concepts into philosophy of mind which is novel to me at least. :)
Perhaps you know of the Van Lommel studies? I guess they support "our" "cause" if they get properly confirmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Van_Lommel_studies
I'll see if I can comment on this in more depth later!
PS. You may want to check out these links:
http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3543
http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#AD
I have this to say for now:
helium writes:
"3. This kind of materialism is no way scientific theory in itself, because:
1. This is an axiomatic system of modern science - a starting point. Before creators of this paradigm we hardly see
anything as "science" in modern sense.
2. This paradigm itself is non-falsifiable.
3. As it's non-falsifiable and considered simple, it is the kind of thing where one can say "prove the opposite".
4. The problem with it's non-falsifiability, where it conflicts with Poppers definition of science, is that it's
non-falsifiable based on prime axioms of science, namely itself. It's a kind of theorem, which renders itself effectively
non-falsifiable forever. One can't possibly disprove it. Thus it's pseudoscience."
So by this point 3, do you seriously call science for pseudo-science? The practical point with "materialism" is that
it's basically detectable by the human senses or by instruments, thus "objective".
In a sense, feelings are already objective because one knows they are electrified by some mechanism, chemical or whatever.
The general line for now is that science is indeed in no way materialistic in itself because science accepts
everything that can pass as an objective explanation by the HDM, predominantly. So if you can bridge immaterialism
or whatever alchemy you want proven, you are already welcome to do this. The hard part is that nobody has been able
to do this! Therefore, we have this "fallback" to "materialism".
I just like to add that it's obvious that people come from different points in space and time (formally) and do live their lives as such differently, having different life experiences. As such, people are plausibly "reactor-containers" to their environment so you are right, I think, that people share the same foundation, being humanity and the rest of the scientific descriptions that are indeed the same, with differences also being the differences, ie. the DNA is unique with everyone, that the personality is unique with everyone.
I think adaptation and creation may be equivalent in this sense. One can create one's way into the future thus one adapts or one can adapt one's way into the future thus one creates.
Arguments for Ethical Objectivity - By Hallvard Lillehammer
To begin with, I believe in ethical, moral objectivity. I believe there's no particular problem in proving this.
(1) That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
(2) "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly.
Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist,
not that moral errors are committed ethically.
(3) "...ethical claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the
world that exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those
who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
(4) "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that constitute them would
converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there
are objective moral duties in relation to the object in question.
From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written
by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423.
It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions.
One more thing: I think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate right from
wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they
fall into a different group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number
of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of the current diversity of humanity.
I've made some additions to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance
that I like to address. I've taken notice of "In Defense of Objective Morality" by Wolfman and particularly an apt
comment by Mako in it. I'm in sympathy with the intention of the thread, obviously, although, personally, I boil
it down to Neo-Kantian deontology for now. I hope to expand on this thread and I also hope you have views on
arguments of Companions in Guilt.
"Pain looks great on other people, that's what they're for" By Sisters of Mercy, "I Was Wrong"
Do you consider ethical, moral concepts to be empty or non-describable, non-affirmable? Are you arguing for moral skepticism or moral relativism? In my belief of objectivity in this regard, I think there are good possibilities of plausibly arguing for morality to exist, that actions can be described as good or bad according to the subject of ethics and morals. As such, I think one can take it further to make the rational case to other people of reason of deciding objectively what the best consists in. The framework for this can be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it, without imposing particular problems. I think Wootah nicely makes the case for objective status to be credible. That what you think about the world obtains in a very limited way. This should also be the situation of circumstances where morals apply (all?), that circumstances can be described objectively and that there's objective morals to be applied to it.
[Edit, 10.05.2010:] I've written something like this earlier on this forum: It should be a fundamental belief that morality/ethics is to respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus, as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this respect, a general starting point. But I'd like to add (both here and on my webiste) that - Rationality in this sense is nothing mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great on IQ-tests, having a fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or great working performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to speak! [End of edit.]
I'm willing to agree with this. Throwing oneself into ideas and frameworks that are either flawed or beyond one's full
grasp is certainly foolish and should be dangerous to one's health!
Examples:
Followers of the political beliefs of Nazi-regime.
To be morally ignorant may also be dangerous.
I don't think that Freudians are so fortunate either.
Generally, I think also of people who follow relativistic or absurdist philosophies may also enter your argument.
Arising_uk wrote:
"You appear to think that there is a 'European' academic system?"
I do at least think that EU universities are connected and that European universities also share the important factor of geographical proximity.
I strongly believe in geographical loyalty and I think people are most loyal to the surroundings where they live and that this loyalty gets
"weaker" the further removed you are from this place.
Arising_uk wrote:
"And that there are 'european' companies?"
Every company that has a (headquarter) base in Europe is indeed European! Now, the companies that have their headquarters in Europe is more European
than the former and the European companies that are both owned by European investors and headquartered are even more European than these. I think
it's reasonable to also see this in degrees of activity. Many people probably see Opel as European yet it's owned by Ford and I also believe it has
most of its activity and assets in Europe, so there you go. But, definitely, I think there are European companies, no doubt about it.
Arising_uk writes:
"And a Europe that is anything other than a political gathering of Nations?"
Yes, Europe is also a natural geographical area, most excellently signified by the European Union and possibly also the Euro. There are upcoming
questions of adding Turkey and Israel into the EU that may blur this picture, but at least EU consists of only/largely European countries and will
probably continue to do so until Utopia, if not forever.
John writes:
"It sounds to me that your making a plea for the value of education rather than anything else and as I'm not aware of any respectable arguments
against education as such then I'm still not sure what point you think you've made here."
I believe universities can become more active instruments in achieving domination of the European market and this is the point. This is made on the
background of OS companies, only Microsoft (if not Oracle, Sun and IBM Cons. Serv. on server market also), processor market, only AMD and Intel,
internet store market, only Ebay and Amazon and finally the search market, Yahoo with Altavista, Bing and Google. All of these are U.S. American!
I have nothing against U.S.A whatsoever, I just suggest one should spread chance and competance around so that every industry is proportionately
represented around the world, serving the justice to people everywhere, not only in Europe with respects to these particular industries!
John writes:
"Again, this seems a bit confused to me. Is this really just a plea for universities to focus on areas that are in market demand? I.e. cut subjects
like philosophy?"
Yes! I'm sure the "soft" subjects can be arranged in a cheaper way insofar as they are necessary beyond universities. That is, either they cut them
thin and suffer the loss of "production" or they cut them thin and arrange for more network based approaches, possibly maintaining
"production"/competance.
For your last comment:
You should also note that 6/7 of these are petroleum companies (I'm uncertain about Sinopec) and are thus on the outside of this perspective.
The Dutch company is in banking and banking has always been the most profitable, but you can argue that the Wal-Mart retailing is also traditionally
profitable. I also think it may be useful to instead focus on richest people.
Otherwise, I like to restate that I call for more aggression on use of university (and regulation, for letting the projects into market) for
levelling deficiencies on a regional level on both technology and competance, possibly in other areas.
Although lately, I've been pleased to know that GB is expanding the universities, allowing more students and conseq. graduates.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10
It says 63,41% for the XP system out of the 9X% of the total Windows/Microsoft share!
Remarkable!
Last time I've checked the Wine project, it's been abandoned! You need to give me a reliable source for this one.
John,
For the Altavista issue, it's certainly the fact that DARPA developed the first internet and hasn't this
at least come out the doors of some university? If we go far enough back...
No, I mean the post you haven't replied to! DARPA isn't a university, yes! Still, its foundation may lie in university activities, eg. department of technology or India Institute of Technology or thereof. Also, as you write, the (D)ARPANET has been connected to universities in its bare beginning, being an issue of university activity, afterall.
The U.S. American universities are driven by pragmatism and it seems to yield better results on important areas than European ones that are based broadly and all equally seriously.
But, yes, summa summarum (out of all factors of society), the U.S. American universities are the winners. Off my memory, there are more US. American Nobel-prize winners and there are certainly more USA based Nobel-prize winners in all categories except literature (and peace prizes) for the last 50 years, at least.
This is it in my eyes, they are just more aggressive on promising research areas than the rest of the world.
I'm not sure if the funding system has so much to do with it. If you're not taxed to support the education system incl. university, then there should be room to save money in order to achieve exactly the same...
However, the main point has been to identify areas that may grow out of European universities, both in skills and actual technology. I've mentioned the European library system of Europeana that may be a good candidate for becoming both the European Google and Amazon (as it needs the indexing services). I've also suggested that Europe should begin to develop enough skilled work-force to set up its own OS business (incl. funding and market regulation) and so forth with the other crucial areas that are not properly represented in Europe yet.
So, yes, the innovations... the future of European business life and such...
The whole idea with this, is to show how the media coverage is reluctant to give time to the most constructive efforts in Africa that may lead the way to a better future for the people who live there. Instead, the media covers the cosmetic such as those first 3 issues. Those 3 issues have always shown to come on top of a good, healthy business life. In this sense, the media reports are turning the situation upside down, spreading misery reports when we should have a good incentive to embark on the business opportunities there. This is the point! We learn that everything is going to Hell in Africa, they can't care for the sick and old, they should not be building industry there because it pollutes and distorts and glossy picture of Africa and lastly, they should keep their gardens green and wildlife flourishing so that we can go there and enjoy the nature, primarily, never care or have a positive recognition of the people there!
I like to make an update on media coverage of Africa.
BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/2010/02/100204_podcasts_africa.shtml as these are
* Africa Today
* This Week in Africa
* African Perspective
Now it also seems BBC launches Africa Business Report. Information here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/africa_business/default.stm. In relation to CNN, I say
BBC 1 - 0 CNN.
There's also the initiative stemming from G.W. Bush's days, AGOA, here:
http://www.africacncl.org/agoa/default.asp.
Here's a fine intro to African business life: http://allafrica.com/business/. I love to the see the further work of presenting fine African business opportunities, if not by Europeans/US Americans, then by Africans themselves backed by the power of the internet and media in general.
There's been recent developments with CNN in the battle over Africa of BBC vs. CNN. CNN is now launching Marketplace Africa (http://www.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/marketplace.africa/). Therefore, the updated score is BBC 1 - 1 CNN today, 22.03.2010. We'll see how efficient the programs are in being given airtime and making impact to Africa in terms of opportunity in updating the scores, but this is going the right way!
This has little to do with business of Africa, but the header is still "For Africa"! So:
Why isn't there a dual approach to Africa, promoting both HIV/AIDS medicines and contraceptives.
It must be awful to live in Africa and have the natural biological urges/needs and yet somehow be forced to
have children that one can't supply properly for, who are facing harsh conditions through their lives, bound
to repeat the failures of their parents! Why is this so? Why not both?
Typically and in my opinion. This is the other side of the Modal Argument (NDNID) that you can find elsewhere. Atheist has no firm grasp of Meaning. To the Atheist, meaning is to live and die as a biological organism with limited time-span.
Atheist has no belief in Ethics beyond being a kind of reflection of common laws. The belief of punishment and reward (incl. obedience to laws) is dominant with the Atheist.
Atheist has no belief in Infinity, commonly. Human kind is bound to be a blip in the Universe. Human kind "has rised from the ashes and comes to be ashes again".
Atheist commonly claims more honest views in science, yet religion is always different and separate from science no matter how hard you try to wring it in!
Humanism is decent, but Religion has superior beliefs with regards to positive outlooks and human virtue and capacity, being intended by God much as we plan to have children.
First, I can't see how the punishment of God comes across to the Atheist. Secondly, this asserted as punishment and reward is meant objectively, eg. if you get extra pocket-money from your parents or if you get a slap for being naughty! Thirdly, yes, I do believe Ethics (hopefully the best possible) lies closer to the mentality of a religious person than an Atheist. Getting rewarded or punished eternally should certainly have deep-seeded implications for the religious person and more so than the (shallow) atheist who has no consequences beyond one's mere life. More deeply, this can be the deliverance of legacy to the next generation, but I think this is rare in the Atheist.
A funny remark, if Ethics is so important in Atheism, why is it that it's only briefly mentioned by the Brights' Net! I find this strange indeed!
In regard of alleging that victors write history, it's remarkable that even though the Jews have been "defeated" by the Nazis, their story is consistently and correctly told, I believe.
I think this principle is drawing to its close as we're now in the information age. Witness the Iranian political
opponents and their information brought to the world, also despite their "defeat".
There are very good possibilities for accurate and good information almost everywhere in the world and in most situations,
but people need to be aware and do the job to uncover and question!
...Medical Syndicate
My investigations into the psychiatry have prompted me to write this. It's funny how the Pandora's box of Psychiatry
opens so many leads to issues. Well, here:
If one considers the industry of psychiatric drugs, it appears to me that the whole industry is mainly a State and
Insurance companies driven (with varying degrees between these two entities) Medical Syndicate where informal/formal
social contacts within each country decide a given drug/treatment regime. In this way, as psychiatry drugs are beyond
people's choice in the ordinary sense because they're primarily bought/dispensed by the clinics/doctors and hospitals
that in turn are financed by states and insurance companies in unison, the whole business of psychiatric drugs are in
fact driven by exactly these states and insurance companies, mediated by these informal/formal social contacts! Therefore,
speculatively, poor procedure [including public education] and poor personnel approach, in short: corruption, accelerate
the justification and use of psychiatric drugs! Who has been speaking of China? Is this any good? I don't think so!
Isn't it plausible that poor treatment can accelerate/promote the use of drugs/medicine as an easy way out? I find great differences in the education of general population of somatic/bacteriological illnesses from the psychiatric one, almost as the psychiatric area is obscured in some ways. I'm suspicious of this. Also the threshold of entering a psychiatric condition is more blurred than from getting the flu or getting a leg fracture, clearly. This is the reason for this topic and I encourage you to be serious about as I'm serious about it.
Quote: ...which states that the moon does not exist if no one looks at it?
You should mind that indirect observation (tide-water) entails the moon and simply having seen the moon by a regular
pattern, considering the existance of laws of nature, is also consistent with indirect observation. So, no, I don't
think CI says that the moon doesn't exist if you're not observing it directly. Only the people with a narrow
interpretation of CI can make such an inference from it.
(I'm only in support of CI in this sense and certainly not the narrow sense.)
Besides, who I am may not be an accident at all, but follows beautifully down the family tree of life and genetics, from ancient ancestors to my parents (and to myself) today...
I think differently even about that causal chain (of events) mainly because of the mystery of consciousness. However, it's not significant in its ethical value whether you as an example of the human kind has been born in South-Africa or Japan or anywhere else.
It's quite unknown to us what exact role consciousness plays in transforming "signals" or creating its own "signals" to act upon in that causal chain.
Morality can be to respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this respect.
Repugnance and appeal to emotions/feelings/aestheticism is not the only way to get there. (Also, I doubt it is a good ethical foundation.)
As you're a man, you're sexually primed to be with women, normally speaking. To see two women having sex with one-another may give you the psychological impression of being twice the man with having two women under your dominion of manhood. Not only that, but as they're having sex with one-another, there may be a chance for it all to be harmonious, which is definitely a virtue (and all the more pleasing with so much more gratification).
As a man and being heterosexual, two guys doing it, is like trying to mix oil and water. They're your non-sexual fellow human beings and therefore doesn't represent any positive feelings at all because you are primed to be with women. Even seeing one man stimulating himself should be disgusting in this sense. But seeing the picture of a male model is something entirely different because to us it may represent our ideal of good looks and beauty and is in this way a leader among men in looking like a man (who is implicitly favoured by women).
This aside, as far as laws represent proper ethics and no laws are broken in these respects, this has nothing to do with ethics. I even doubt it can say anything dubious about anyone.
I've found Pantheism appealing in the past, but what if the Universe expands until "cold-death" (energy spreads out so thin that nothing is supported by the limited energy in any place).
I think Deism in the multiverse-creator-natural-God solves this. That is, God is the source of the creation of a multiverse, with each having the possibility to sustain life-forms during its course of "life".
I think that one has to act morally to reach full potential and the reason for this is mainly for caring for one's integrity so that action in some direction has meaning to you, ie. you get meaningful direction in life.
This is a short answer/opinion only, but I'm pursuing Ethical Objectivity, Ethics of Integrity and a kind of "Religious" Ethical View, all of these being compatible with one-another, through writings on my web-site (look to the posts elsewhere on this forum).
Post subject: Re: Ethics of picketing PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 10:29 pm
...these are regulated by laws of some kind, preventing disaster and loss of life to happen as a result of strikes. Isn't there something like go-slower strategy for firefighters? Being grumpy with the lady who wants the cat down from the roof?
I think the Norwegian law prohibits leaving helpless people in need (to die, or severely injured or injured).
This is especially with regards to traffic accidents and instructing fellow drivers and others to help in cases of emergency.
Just a notice. Accessory to murder is bit harsh, in my opinion. People may have the perception of staying safe by not helping, thinking it may lead to some kind of danger/social play if one does actually lend a hand.
Prof. Paul Cliteur writes in "The New Atheism - The Varieties of Atheist Experience" of Einstein, "Einstein does not believe in a ‘personal God’. His ‘religion’ is based on (and identified with) "the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.""
I like to make the point that Einstein certainly hasn't advocated Atheism which causes me to refer to Einstein's religious or atheistic practice in his overall life before announcing him to be of any particular creed at all. If there can be an account of it, it should be given a better picture by those people closest to him. Two sentences of rather indeterminate character should be taken as a verdict of a person's religious life. I believe there's more to it than that. It can very well remain a mystery what his personal opinion is on the matter as his preferred main activity of his life has been the study of physics.
It seems to me that to turn in people to a group of people of one's preference, is to make a kind of appeal to authority and possibly making a strawman-argument.
Clearly, there are self-proclaimed advocates for Atheism like the names of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett and thus it might very well be that their kind of religious criticism only hits a small minority of religiously conservative people and this kind of religious life or view may simply not be reflected in, say, 95% of people calling themselves religious in the moderate or modern/light-hearted/mystery sense.
Let prominent people say what they are and if you're particularly curious, ask them to write about it. To make a psychologistic account of people's sense of reality is deeply stupid, I think, almost as to question their most important and inner opinions as if people haven't made a conscious decision of it.
Also, please address the above-18 yos if you want to question people's convictions just to be kind.
Not all of the above relates to the article of Prof. Paul Cliteur, but this may be a topic discussing prominent people's declared religious views and what they may contain.
Fast reply:
God has Omniscience - knows everything and Omnipotence - all powerful (as well as Omni-, being everywhere).
So God creates this universe and every possibility in it, but this is in possibility only, not necessarily determining anyone person
to anything at all. Instead, the typical routes are known. Thus a being of this kind out of this environment usually turns out this
way. Therefore, the kind of omniscience doesn't say anything of one in particular, but is the expectancy that out of God's creation,
most, if not all, of God's "children" will return to this being or get reincarnated, whatever way this works.
This is at least a way I reflect on it.
One can plausibly say that omniscience (because God knows/"knows" how to create a universe and all in it), omnipotence (because God has the power to create a universe and all in it), omnipresence (because as God creates a universe and all in it, God acts on God's creation as part of his being, not doing anything in particular, but being part of it), omnibenevolence (because as God has created a universe and all in it, God has left fine possibilities for proving worthy to God's being/Heaven or whatever and denies, at least for a time, this grace to ill-intended/wrong-doers) can be reasonable given the statements in parentheses.
Such might a God be in the Deist interpretation. Please, note that this interpretation removes the stupid notions of God on a cloud or God as person or God in all those cartoon-like senses.
I think it's best to get it down on paper as inspiration hits you.
I'd like to say to you that if don't write it down, it may not be possible to acquire it again. It may get lost forever.
If you find that you write too much lousy stuff, don't feel bothered about, but just strike out what you sense is not so good.
Not only political power to the people, but also information and opportunity!
Internet is thus ideal...!
Plantinga's Modal Form:
"It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists."
My comment is that the S5 argument may mistake the necessity of the existence of God with (one's own) reality (to view something from,
to have existence yourself first!). So my question is this: does it? Is the S5 justification for God logically/modally wrong?
It may be that it can be interpreted into a kind of Pantheism of God being in all and thus...
Modal logic on S5 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic_S5.
I'm not sure if this is a common view, but Kosovo has had an intervention by an out-of-area NATO operation. And in this line, it may be useful to give people of respective territories a kind of protection on a universal level in giving their best for both themselves and the world at large. Something for Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 force?
It's so bloody irritating that psychiatry seems to be ignorant of the causes and be very passive in giving recommendations on what to
do to stay on a good course in life.
Like with the dangers of smoking, drinking alcohol in case of damage to the liver, stay fit to avoid vascular and cardiac diseases and all
that. Very good in other fields, lousy in psychiatry!
Some may even go so far as calling psychiatry a Crime Scene!
Still, psychiatric patients seem to lack the functioning (aspects) of healthy people, like social, like others.
Deep down, I'm also positive for accurately determining what is wrong in the future, like with the promises of using MRI to determine characteristic neuron firing.
Some of the psychiatrists/psychologists have been nutty, eh... eh... naughty, naughty, uncle Aetixintro (Aeti/Uncle Tony from the Mob movies, if you feel that is more scary) may be coming to get you!
So, conclusion... the well functioning psychiatric patients are discharged and the bad functioning "healthy" people are forcefully committed to looooong (sectioned) hospital stays! Hmm... maaaaybeeee they will never leave again... booo...
Very well. Much like the OPEC has formed, but it can be done on every level, government, company, worker unions.
OPEC doesn't control the way states are spreading the oil wealth to secure the future for the member countries and other petroleum production countries, but this is also outside it's purpose. Its purpose is only to see that the member states get the right price for their precious natural resources and this can only be good.
Democracy needs to take care of the citizens of the actual country which can, of course, be well supported by oil revenues.
Likewise, the syndication for various primary industries will ensure the right price for their products as well, as much as various other good benefits, like growth of development of countries, more healthy and able people (because of their better income).
I get f**king irritated! We can start this moment to limit world population naturally and thus achieve quite a fine, rich future! Still people moan about everything that goes to hell. Let's just start this 200 year scope planning of reducing world population to half its 2005 size and I guarantee all will be good! Trust me!
[Edit, 22.03.2010:] Wikipedia is making a point in numerical identity, but to say that Superman and Clark Kent is one and the same person is, of course, to make a logical identification of these two appearances being the same person. The issue with Lois Lane is that she fails to address a modality of possibility of Superman being Clark Kent, possibly due to Clark Kent acting like a frail person at crucial moments. This failure of hers in the cartoon series of this identification is causing her to believe that there are two logical separate identities, Superman and Clark Kent being two different people.[End of edit.]
[Edit2, 22.03.2010:] Is there anybody who can help me to identify the source of the alleged Superman/Clark Kent issue? Perhaps it can be interesting to gain knowledge of the original article/paper/author(s) or whatever.[End of edit.]
[Edit3, 22.03.2010:] I've found Keith T. Maslin and his book, "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind". I'm uncertain though if he's
the first. The context is nicely laid out, however, with the argument against Descartes and also against property dualism. You can check
it out yourself. You can also check out these links:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/
http://books.google.no/books?id=mxpFwcAplaAC&pg=PA755&lpg=PA755&dq=philosophy+of+mind+superman+vs+clark+kent&source=bl&
ots=GibUI_GwY8&sig=LWL50IS23EhqTLH7FC0z-qfcXx0&hl=no&ei=lh6nS677H5jL-Qa9qIzTBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&
resnum=4&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Routledge-Encyclopedia-Philosophy-Boxed-Vso10/dp/0415073103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269243850&sr=1-1
So it seems that this originates back to Frege and the so-called Frege's Puzzle. At least from what I get from it, it's
used as an argument against every form of dualism.[End of edit.]
Quote: "that truth dies with the messenger"
I believe that Aquinas' and Einstein's words are still with us today, alas this is simply not true! I can agree that
the words are not necessarily representing truth as such, especially Aquinas', but historically speaking there's no
doubt of the messengers' messages!
I'm actually a Deist, a kind of Unitarian/Scientologist without any Jesus in it.
If you pay attention to this only, you should have a good start:
The most basic foundation in supporting a God-belief consists of these factors.
(1) The fact that there are [(most certainly/probably)] truths outside of our current sphere of knowledge is one
rational reason to believe in God.
(2) The anomalies of science suggest a fantastic explanation to all of these.
(3) A serious ontological consideration of meaning.
(4) A serious consideration of ontological morals of Good and Evil.
Not to enjoy in common the joy of philosophy itself, in learning, thinking and writing?
Impenitent wrote: "the later Wittgenstein denounced the Tractatus... -Imp"
The late Wittgenstein did more strange things as well, like writing "On Certainty", attacking G. E. Moore
of all things, quite weird coming from a former "associated member" of the Vienna Circle, the logical
empiricists.
Denouncing his own work in the end of it?
Whatever the bashing is, they certainly deserve more or less all of it. These malfunctions have killed! It's serious, being such a big corporation and presenting such poor engineering. Well, well...
One may suspect a Toyota person here and there may have lost touch with life, hoping for some more entertainment in society, but this is probably a wildshot!
Things can only get better... :) (the song is by D:Ream, if you want it)
[Edit, 19.03.2010:] "Toyota: Nothing can stop us now!" and "Toyota: Nothing's gonna stop us now!" and we have two flavours to choose from, one of the songs being written by Nine Inch Nails and the other is a "classic" from Starship. I think I like the NIN flavour: "Nothing can stop us now cuz we don't care anymore!" [End of Edit.]
[Edit2, 19.03.2010:] Toyota is being interviewed and the interviewer asks:
Concerning the run-away cars, is this Toyota's attempt of AI or its envisioning of AI? (I'd rather say it's
"intelligence" as opposed to intelligence.)
Toyota answers: F********** M****** and #%#¤%¤%#¤%#¤ [End of Edit.]
The approach could more fortunately be phrased: I'm searching for Plato and Hypatia and I'm given this,
a forum of rather "low" quality in my opinion.
Also, why don't you ask positively for information on Plato and Hypatia?
Well, here (I see obviously you probably have been there, but just so it's included in the PN forum):
Hypatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia with nice references, suggestions for further reading, and external
links out of the Wikipedia website.
Plato http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato and http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/plato/, with same being the case for the fine presentation of Plato on Wikipedia.
I think that the PN forum serves an inclusive role to everyone who's, hopefully positively, interested, being liberal on sanctions on the users which may be both good and bad. At least, the threshold here is very low for opening up on your thoughts on the various philosophical issues. If you're dissatisfied, please do yours to raise the standard! Enjoy the philosophy, everyone!
George Carlin... He must be an atheist, hopefully a fine Humanist!
I'm mostly interested in Philosophy of Science, but yes, I entertain some views in Religion, Deism and Philosophy of Religion too.
Btw, we've had to re-register after Oct. 2007, so I've actually been with the PN forum far longer than 2008. You should check out Philosophy Now, the magazine and buy the CD's of all the previously published issues.
Fact (at least allegedly): The corona of the Sun displays different temperatures being actually hotter farther out from the surface than on the surface itself.
I written an answer to this in what follows:
(From my website, http://www.t-lea.net, written by myself.)
Quote:
"Explantion: optimal temperature happens a little outside the surface of the corona because the atoms/particles
have greater space for temperature vibrations there according to this optimal temperature of these circumstances,
the atoms/particles being held to the Sun, a little outside the corona in this fashion. Temperature should indicate
something about the space between atoms/particles because temperature corresponds to the (propositional)
excitation/vibration of the atoms/particles."
If one would have the same temperature farther in toward the Sun's core then it has necessarily the same, relatively thin composition there as well, you know, this being a smaller Sun, even if the mass in this case either has to differently organised relatively to the substances of the Sun's composition or that it's just lighter.
The conclusion is that the heat (or superheat) is optimal a little farther out for these atoms'/particles'
vibrations to produce this heat than where atoms'/particles' become more dense as one moves in toward the
core of the Sun. I'm uncertain to what degree this may hold, describing the variations of the temperature of
the star at all levels, but this explanation/theory is, of course, meant to hold for conditions of hot surfaces
on all instances of the kind our Sun is displaying. So it's first and foremost an explanation/theory of
description that applies to this surface and its gaseous outer layer, but it may also extend to, in a variable
manner, a host of conditions of (astro-)physics.
What do you think? This may not exactly be Philosophy of Science, but it may represent an example in its way of
reflecting something of science in a philosophical way, in a sense, the very making of the science.
Paul Karl Feyerabend has been really destructive! Damn him!
With his "Against Method", he has f**ked it all when everybody knows that HDM is the right way!
Now that he's dead, all I can say is Good Riddance! R.I.P - Rest in PAIN!
I'm in that mood! Such is the war against the pack of Canguilhem, Foucault, Kuhn and the dear Feyerabend!
As a quick response, I think I can safely say that Aristotle thinks truly virtuous agent is the one who lives in harmony with the virtues. Alas, one identifies the virtues/virtuous relationships and one lives by them to the greatest degree.
The content person is the one who lives more with the winds and is happenchance living an ordinarily good life, but unable to truly appreciate life and reach for the greatest values in life because of one's ignorance (to these virtues).
I don't guarantee the fulness of this response. There should be quite more to do including identifying the actual key points in Aristotle's work.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
To go and kill a person is a crime! To discuss (Assisted) Suicide is not! What planet are you on?
Don't you submit to an authority of the company by contract, ie. agreement?
Isn't it unreasonable when you enter this company, by agreement, of an engineer and this engineer has laid out procedures for his plant of production that you are supposed to say what is supposed to be the rules? I don't disagree with the HES - Health, Environment, Security, it's not the issue, but I'm pointing to all the other issues.
Can't you see how each of the 5 arguments turn on our will to select what best suits us and our life of how we
perceive it?
Determinists will never be able to separate the cases because as you say, the possibility of being able to choose
has arisen through means of determinism or if we are in a strict causal relation like a traffic accident, then
you'll "prove" that this and that perception has been leading to the accident.
In opposition to Determinism, I think it's sufficient to show our ability to take charge by Free Will over our biological being and nature by doing simply what we want!
If there's a matter of your life going into the ditch then I believe most people can plausibly commit suicide if there's a good possibility of doing so comfortably without going through the shit and pain, thus (again) circumventing Determinism/Nature and choosing termination of one's self.
For some (psychological) reasons, I don't think these ways come across as self-inviting. You know, a few pills down the throat, lying in your bed, terminating your life by going into eternal sleep. There are various other impracticalities, it may not look so decent to throw one's self off and it can be hard to recover the body, leaving people puzzled over what really happened. Perhaps the canoe-man comes to mind?
MagnetMan writes:
"If we no longer die natural deaths
then who is to decide when to die?"
You should keep in mind that euthanasia is primarily a measure applied to those who are to die undesired/painful
deaths. Those who die in a peaceful and romantic manner are not entailed by euthanasia.
"And how to end it?"
By cocaine and heroine derivatives!
I'd say an individual must be rational to believe in God!
"...one’s definition of rational."
I think it may be possible to start with having a reasoning that builds on the plausible, being able to draw on logic,
having good cognitive skills generally and apply the scientific method in seeking the best. I'd say a possible rationality
in the belief of God is founded on the fact that there's a huge chasm of lacking knowledge that needs to be filled up with
something and this may well be God. The solution to this lacking knowledge will either way have to be fantastic!
Quote from Straw Dog (and all the following):
Given that most people fall into nothing as you say ; what is the point of a God creating a random process which may cause
most humans to necessarily fail.
I'll say all people fail to some degree but it doesn't mean people fail totally. People are, in this sense, of God's creation and their souls are of perfection and some, perhaps most, of this perfection is the ticket back to God. Let us assume that something like souls exist. It should take great severities to destroy the whole of one's created perfection.
Quote:
The problem with this theory is that in order to make sense of what you say there as to be an end point. What you suggest is
that life is a qualifying exercise. So what does it lead to. If it is another life in spirit I would suggest that most go to
their death ignorant of the test you claim is at the heart of creation.
Heaven or something is a possible end point. As you say, I see life as a qualifying exercise but you do not need to consciously qualify. Most, assumably, qualify by their mere being or doing in daily life. Most people are leading good lives. The strive to achieve greater quality is to get closer to God, if such a phenomenon exists. So when you are dying you are comfortable with yourself in returning to the divine sphere. Perhaps by consciously tending to one's actions, there are pleasures or reincarnation or something excellent in achieving a quality of God, very partly, that is of goodness or otherwise. I do not exactly how to describe an endpoint, other than a possible satisfaction of your self, to others and of your own soul, your consciousness.
Quote:
God is capable of "possibility" in creation as Schopenhauer has said.
This means that to consign the process to evolution negates creating by choice.
I think it may be possible for the sphere of God, of perfection, to influence or assist, if you will, the world as we live it by short bursts or moments in time. I agree that the consignation takes away much of a possible active God. I try to think of God as dormant, working in the world in mysterious ways by some function or stuff not known.
Quote:
The best possible world cannot be a creation of failure with the purpose of didactic learning when most people do not learn. It would be a
pointless exercise in creation.
God will not be a good being if the creation is one of failure but I think most people do learn and evolve in this sense. We are getting better at being human beings all the time. We are getting better in science and a lot of other areas as well. Edited: I share some of the opinion of Descartes by this.
I hope this is sufficient.
The key point however is to state that evil originates from limitation and of course limitation originates from the divide of something from nothing. The property of nothing is therefore central to the Problem of Evil the way I see it. Hopefully, this represents an original contribution to solving the Problem of Evil.
The justification for this limitation is the perfect drama, the mirror of God's nature, of seeing the smallest parts evolve into greater God-like features becoming God again.
First there is nothing, then God or whatever creates the world or universe if you wish. Still, around this something there is nothing and in giving birth to this perfect drama, from the limitation, arises the evil as we see it.
The conclusion is that God is not lacking in quality and is totally perfect and God therefore gives birth to perfection in the perfect drama. Perhaps we get compensated for pains in this drama with pleasures in the afterlife. Who knows?
I am still though remaining an agnostic. I just play with the idea of God.
I hold that full evil is nothing. Surely, a child being raped suffers evil to some degree. Consequently, I try to show that existence is only good given by God due to God's nature. I don't reject the idea that people suffer from time to time a degree of evil and I certainly don't mean to belittle them. As long as people stay in the belief of goodness, they are saved from the full evil. In my version, your soul is saved if you nurture it no matter what the dire situation. People who suffer a degree of evil are being reduced as people so I think it's important that people avoid evil and get out of evil situations with or without the use of force as in self-defence. Is it better?
I've set it that way because I don't want to allow an epistemology where people are necessarily correct everytime they consider something. If God represents all in nature, every bit of quark and so on, people must be conjuring ideas that are faulty in order to be mistaken about nature ie. God and these ideas obviously lack in quality. If there are no cases where the ideas may be mistaken, there is a linearity straight into God's being and course of nature may be lightning quick. I don't consider perfection and moral perfection apart from one another. If God is then perfect, I think it follows that every place God creates must be the best ie. perfect. You may read the whole post to have a better impression of what I'm trying to say.
A clarifier. When I use the word "world" I mean the whole universe. This universe can be seen as a shred of God, God's creation. I consider God to be the universe and all other universes (gravitational systems) as well as being beyond them. This turn is necessary for having the infinity cycle. I don't know if people feel it's any good, but infinity will always play the trump card in my explanations. I can't think of a perfect God if I don't get infinity with it. Infinity now!
When it comes to perfection, there can be only one objective set of principles, qualities, whatever. I think it's impossible for God to hold subjective values. Generally, God's just spurting universes, quite unable to do anything else than what consists in perfection. God is necessarily a prisoner of perfection. Otherwise one faces a host of ontological problems, like having a Flying Spaghetti Monster around. Since there's no subjective values in God, there's only this one set of perfect principles that constitutes a "best possible world". There may be several worlds equally created to the same "best" standard.
I hold that Evil is outside of God. It's a contradiction to what is. Full evil is nothing. God is all.
Nothing and all don't go together! Can nothing be part of substance? No! Besides, as I've stated before,
God is the explanation to pre-BigBang and key to infinity. As God is the explanation to these and other
anomalies, God is certainly not superfluous to the explanation.
There may be forces playing on us from the outside, nothing. It may seem strange that nothing can hold "force", but I see no other solution. Maybe I can point to relativity, where substance is creating a pull in the fabric of space. Maybe there's some strange way that nothing can create this pull as well toward God-all. As is demonstrated, a vacuum tends to be filled quickly with something. What do you think?
Edit: Just a comment to Aquinas 1. way. Why can't God create or recreate God. Instead of the unmoved mover that I find implausible, one may point to a God in eternal cycle with itself? In ancient times, I believe, there has been an irrational fear to infinity and therefore Aquinas may have been forced to postulate an unmoved mover in the causation chain. Alright, there may be an issue with actuality and potentiality here. Maybe it can twist into "God (actuality) to medium (potentiality) to God (actuality)" in eternal cycle. The actuality and potentiality may not affect the nature of God on the other hand.
I think I'm on the right track. The vacuum analogy may be just it. Physics is also not entirely firm on the issue of how matter distribute relative to the vacuum in space, isn't this correct? I believe there's also speculation what the outside of universe effects on the universe itself. There's obviously difficulties with God in relation to evil in the traditional sense and to this, my new approach may be just what is needed. As a result, I'll eat the strange from the outside nothing effects for now. Vacuum it is!
This is about Religion. It's thereby undeclared whether the statements reflect Reality or Fiction in the strictly objective sense.
I've been thinking long and hard of Rawls ethics of fairness, ultimately coming down to a baseline of Kantian ethics.
But finally it has to be this:
Of course, when you're in this original position, you have nothing and everything should be treated as a possibility.
But the objection is this: you have your attitudes, why should not those (good) attitudes lead to solutions
in everything, from the removal of homelessness to getting rid of poverty!
So, the possibility doesn't arise at all given a few good attitudes on behalf of many people. With your attitude
every situation would run very differently and therefore some destinies would simply not exist!
Conclusion is that, given a specific run up to a point of a drug addict, the original position says you
suddenly should step in and take course to that destiny, but that's not fair, because your attitude would
make that course of life not occurring in the first place. Is therefore (John) Rawls theory of ethics
invalid/unfair/implausible?
A possible contradiction lies with the fact that if you remove psychology from this "you" of original position then what is there left to reason with? Are you supposed to sympathise with all sorts of people? Are you supposed to care for every lunatic doing every mistake in the world?
What do you say?
[Edit:] I've found a paper that investigates modal facets of John Rawls. I don't know if mine is similar or equivalent. I have no access to JSTOR (at the moment) or to the archive of Analysis (Oxford Journals). The paper by Michael E. Levin and Margarita Levin named "The Modal Confusion in Rawls' Original Position" can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3327785
[Edit:] One can introduce these general rules to the course of every destiny:
One has the duty to follow the (best) procedure if one gets into trouble.
One has the duty to investigate the best possible solution to a difficulty one inadvertently comes into.
What's also funny, what are the characteristics this person of destiny, anyway? It's the sense that this person is without discipline, without sense of duty, without freedom, without morality, without mental/physical health, without any particular intelligence and so on.
Is this argument of Rawls begging for our support to stupidity?
I mean, what do you do if you are Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe right now? What do you (a feminist, intellectual, interested in reducing world population) if you this poor, ten-kids mother living in the Bronx? What do you do if you're Adolf Hitler in the bunker in 1945?
How freaked is the situation supposed to be before one says it's impossible to imagine it, to sympathise with it, to consider it an unreasonable situation to be in?
Bottom line: what destinies are non-existent with "you" in them?
[Edit:] Update! The paper by Michael E. Levin and Margarita Levin named "The Modal Confusion in Rawls' Original Position (MC)" is indeed damning to the extent expected. It claims "If this paper and PK [The Problem of Knowledge in the Original Position, Auslegung V (May 1978); henceforth PK.] are right, A Theory of Justice is a non-starter because its crucial concept—the original position—rests on contradictory interpretations of the modal notions." It's such a fine paper that I feel that I've been indoctrinated to Rawls' Theory which is a very ugly feeling. This paper, MC, should be on the flip-side everywhere where Rawls' Theory appears. It's certainly worth both the attention and reading. (I sense it's my duty to inform you of this paper since I've brought it up and I think you like to know of this powerful argument by MC. Reading Rawls' is never to be the same after knowing this paper, I guarantee you.) When this paper says non-starter and Rawls intends it to be just that starter, I think this paper equates Rawls' Theory of Justice to be worthless. It may be harsh to say it, but that's the consequence of fact!
[Edit:] As much as I believe in "non-hackable systems" (given non-physical access, a very common belief, I suspect) in computer science, I also see a normative system in society in response to Rawls' or just generally, this being the perfect flow of information in society and the perfect exercise of office and law, meaning no corruption. In effect, this is presupposed by most people, I think. If you're given also a non-violent conditioning from your parents, enabling you to carry out your duties as a responsible person, there shouldn't be a single situation that can't be overcome, with (voluntary) suicide being the safety-hatch.
The couple made a baby by the name of Elvis, happily enjoying the beach! Such a great movie...
I always take it to be support of my own Romanticism (the era that I. Kant initiated)! A kind of documentation that will always remind me to be faithful!
The fact that there are truths outside of our current sphere of knowledge is one rational reason to believe in God. Another: the anomalies of science suggest a fantastic explanation to all of these. Another: a serious ontological consideration of meaning. Another: a serious consideration of ontological morals of Good and Evil.
Science might as well turn out in favour of souls and God as not doing so. Also, it isn't given that science will be able to solve the big questions at all. You're thereby left with making the final dash beyond death by leap of faith!
I believe the Golden Rule is also the eye for an eye. One shouldn't forget this. Of course, those who deserve the grace of the good people should have it, but a pervert, carnivore who is worthy for an early death should also have it. Golden Rule is not equal to pacifism.
ray: "We have no other candidate."
This isn't entirely true, I believe. If the source of the universe simply is this dense point inflating itself, it can be a kind of candidate, especially if it could have been the case of a closed universe, one that would come back into this dense point. God is certainly the entity that gives a good explanation for making the whole thing go around in that there may be several universes and rebirth of souls and a variety of possibilities that may lie with the God-entity.
So, I'm with ray, I stick with the explanation of God until something better comes up. (I doubt this will happen in my life-time, though.)
Rortabend writes: "Try to remember that you are an intelligent ape."
I believe in evolution too, of course, but I resent the comparison to apes because they diverted on a different thread a long time ago. Apes do not have two arms and legs distinctly from another, they use their arms (dual use as arms and legs) also as legs! This isn't the case in humans and for all other reasons, I write The Human Kind!
I just like to throw in that the dark corners of the European society is so neatly overlooked while lambasting other systems in the world in that politically correct tone! One should bear in mind the Chinese history involving drugs, especially the opium trade that has disabled the country in the past.
Regarding this, I can't see the good argument of bothering to take drugs into China, possibly explaining the
insanity of his.
Still, I find this resolute action of Justice rather appealing contrary to "be-nice-to-the-criminals" of Europe. Good riddance to morons!
I'm sorry for being blunt, but European forgiveness to criminals is getting on my nerves.
I mean to put in "the dark corners" of Europe as a contrast to the head in the skies of throwing
opinions on other countries as a matter of foreign policy. It appears ridiculous to elevate one self out of
one's home turf to criticise other countries' deep-seeded sense of justice. I'm not going to condone Sharia
laws or any of that sort, but it may be wise to remember the circumstances these people live under and their specific
history. Europe has a long and good, I suppose, history of debating justice and our deep integration has helped to
shape a common platform on the continued growth of welfare and living standards. The Chinese have yet to
achieve this as with many other countries like the outskirts of Afghanistan where people live under the bare minimum
with only the Koran in their hands. I really pity them! I do, however, agree with being critical as a sign of respect,
but I still want to highlight a finer context without being relativistic. I sense this kind of criticism would be
better in case it would have arised in fx Belgium or another "equal" country!
As for the practice of laws in Europe, we have cooperative mechanisms in place like the European Council that gives
recommendations for "suitable" punishment. I, of course, argue for a strenghtening of general justice and raising the
time served in prison and harsher fines and compensations schemes. Have you spoken to a victim of severe violent crime
of assault? You know, knocked out teeth, broken bones, depressions, traumas (PTSD) and the host of other problems that
ensue being a victim of crime. I see the society relying in greater degree on informal protection like making deals with
neighbours on vigilante arrangements, engaging the gang on the street corner and making sure your girl is with a guy of
sufficient fighting power or that you, the guy, have this yourself. It shouldn't really be this way!
I strongly support individualism in justice and history. You have to grow up and assume responsibility! I do have some
sympathy with the mentally ill, but I still feel they should have their place in a kind of prison separate from other
inmates. So, no, they are not excused! Besides, they probably need longterm support of a kind.
China is not a totalitarian regime. They exercise one-party politics of democracy where single individuals run for the positions to the Congress! This should be considered. There are actually great freedoms in China and many Chinese people travel the world. Is this in line with being totalitarian? I think not!
To finish this, the man has had NO prior history of mental illness. Why should he all of a sudden become insane? It just doesn't add up!
By the words of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.: "... to seize the human soul.." It's far from it! Do they exercise mind control? Come on! Don't the Chinese enjoy many freedoms? A few? I don't know the exact number, but it should be in the several hundred thousands travelling the world and not just in USA, but in every part of the world, just like the rest of us, Europeans or US citizens. I don't belittle the Chinese!
It strikes me that I think that Chinese are more around the world than the combined population of Africa! Yet, it's not usually mentioned that any African country is totalitarian. I find this funny and paradoxical to the extent that the notion that China is totalitarian or suppressive of its population, is totally wrong!
What I find funny is how the leaders can be so contemptible and the censorship so harsh and yet the Chinese population seems to enjoy the progress and diverse opportunities abroad not to mention the relative roaming media in that country. Heck, even CNN is broadcasting from Hong Kong, now a part of China. Several of these claims don't go together. If you rather put this label on North-Korea, I can agree, but the way I see it now, China is steaming toward both good development, good work-force and greater freedoms in many respects.
China is also served by two stock markets (if not more) in Hong Kong (Hang Seng) and Shanghai (SSE Composite Index). I'd say some of this should be possible if it really is that dysfunctional. Remember, that China has in some ways supported USA by buying value-papers or whatever it's called.
If you stay away from the Tibet issue and one-party system, much of your stay there should be very pleasant! Yes?
I see opportunities for improvement in China, but some will have to take its pace!
Social disturbances, even riots, uprising against inequalities. Then again, how are they able to vote for their representative in congress or any other elective? How does the country manage cohesion with so many allegedly "abused", "repressed", "poor", "exploited", all other bad conditions without having the military forces constantly in the streets? Indeed, quite a number is even smiling and I hear foreigners are happy to visit and work there! China has also been and possibly are one of the greatest attractors of FDI - foreign direct investment, so what is it these foreign investors find so pleasing? Man, it can't be that bad! And it's set to become better... The future looks good for China and Chinese wisdom and culture!
Wootah writes: "These findings, dug out of the ground, are always interpreted according to the theory. You find a rabbit in the wrong strata layer and I guarantee no scientist will accept that finding."
I guess you equate this with the observation of the perihelion of Mercury while only having the Newton theory to rely on
in the past. It must be said that such a finding would call on the basic duties on every scientist of telling what's going
on. I can't see how lying can be science in the sense of repeatability or something else. Do you suggest that there's
a scientific conspiracy going on?
Also, what do you suggest scientists do then in considering dating on earth layers? I can't see that they have so many choices!
I also believe they have made the best, honest choices in carrying out the duties of being a good/excellent scientist.
I just think you're being too radical for me to take this whole thing seriously. Really, "climate gate"? Do you doubt the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Alright! That's a good reference! Although Vikings have mapped Greenland, wouldn't there be the seasonal cold of winter there? Also, I hear that they, Vikings, have struggled with agriculture there, agriculture not being suitable to the environment. Besides, the Viking observations come across as too vague in comparison to the analysis of CO2 trapped in old ice in glaciers! Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Not because it's this pop-thing, but rather because of this incredibly nice presentation of climate data, CO2 data, going back 650 000 (ref. trial in England reported by ...) years. Just very fine! The best example of science presented to public the way I see it. I appreciate your input of the story of the Vikings! Also, when they have travelled/discovered America, haven't they dealt with the big arctic ice sheet that is now in decline?
It has said in the film that the graph and the correlation between CO2 and temperature has been shown for the first time there to a wider audience. This should be correct! I also believe the 35 mistakes don't include the data underlying this specific graph and the correlation data. They should also be good.
On the other hand, you're right, there are several undiscussed or uncritical issues in the film, presenting only one side of the story. Thanks!
My point is this graph and the correlation only. The rest is not so important. Time will tell what will become of the continued rise in CO2 level.
In particular, one mistake refers to data going back 1/2 a billion years ago, but have there been humans in any form 1/2 billion years ago? I believe not! The document of the link also mentions 850 000 years ago when there's not humans in any form either so it's alright. I think it's necessary to keep a scope where the human kind is alive! You can't say that something isn't pollution when human kind dies from it! We are the masters of planet Earth and we'll have to manage it so that we continue the progress of consciousness and knowledge in that the human kind is a part of its future! In this sense, I'm very skeptical of Error 30, the link mentions, as I don't think it's valid to give a scope greater than human existence.
There's also the possibility of being read if you have a famous name! David Chalmers has been exemplary in accelerating papers of philosophers to the masses.
I can't really see where the benefits of internet end. I think one is going from old, cumbersome philosophers to tech-savvy philosophers who are going to advance their work in a whole different way!
Future for philosophy is really good!
My respects for this thread go to Holdyourcolor of PF, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/are-emotions-irrational-38870.html.
So, are emotions rational?
I hold these views:
I believe that if emotions are perceived correctly, they can indeed represent the subsumed rationality.
Shedding tears in respect or in facing greater responsibiliy and challenges due to the loss of this loved one. If you had no favourable propositions in your head of this person, there would be no loss. How this "porting" of the consciousness to emotions and back go, I can't say, but I don't deny the possibility that there's perfection behind it. So, I'm with Yahadreas and possibly beyond.
As such, feelings/emotions are a part of the sense apparatus, not only this, but also from the brain, reflects the persistent strains of that consciousness, I think. Perhaps it's worthwhile in this thread to separate emotion, sentiment and feeling. Feeling being the pure electrical signal in the nerves, sentiment being a psychological inclination of having a positive or negative attitude to something, emotion can be the mix of these two.
At one time, I've been drooling over: Philosophy of Emotion from OUP that should probably give everyone a fine start on the subject!
I see difficulties for being able to perceive one self, lying there, in 3rd person perspective as a matter of hallucination. There should be quite a difference between that of hallucinating one's way to above one's self and all of a sudden finding one's self floating over one's self, not to mention the whole process of losing the connection to the body. You know, there's nothing in the way of running whole film sequences of MR-data, pictures.
Besides, from the text, "You can also ask this person to hypothetically try to view one's self while in the surgery room and have this 3rd MR image compared to the other 2." I believe this includes the MR-mapping of the kind of hallucination you're mentioning and it can be taken away, I think, deduced! In case, the MR-image of "out-of-body" exp. stands out compared to the 3rd [this 3rd MR image] and equals the artistic factual image of one's memory in the MR-machine, I think it settles the case.
Usually, cardiac-arrest patients are also hooked up to medical devices showing clinical condition and this supports the fact that it hasn't been hallucination because the brain has no possibility of producing hallucination. Isn't hallucination quite a massive neuron-firing by the way?
Still then, the procedure I've outlined holds and carries the argument! Even so, please, describe how you think this hallucination takes place. I'd like to hear.
In this thread, you assume business as usual even if the "soul", mind outside the body is confirmed by this or that account?
I think at least that my account is capable of being serious about all the cardiac arrest case where there's reported an "out-of-body" experience. Also this account describes a possible route to gain confirmation of such cases. Remember, not any nut can turn up and say there's been an "out-of-body" experience because there's simply no medical background or history to begin with. This is no child's play. It involves short period of clinical death! Also, the only way for the skeptic is to deny any real occurrence of "out-of-body" experiences.
This is the procedure with which to deal with it: "This can be confirmed by a MR-examination or something like that where there's created an actual, objective signal firing of the recollection of this sensation. This sensation can also be compared by the signal firing due to the visual stimuli of the artistic picture of this sensation. You then have the recollection and the artistic picture or image, by your instructions and whatever aids used to create it as closely as possible to the subjective view of this "out-of-body" experience such as revisiting and taking pictures of the surgery room. You get the MR image of recollection and of the artistic picture. You can also ask this person to hypothetically try to view one's self while in the surgery room and have this 3rd MR image compared to the other 2." Is there any problem with this?
This may well enter a debate over MR-screening since making up a lie has a different route of neuron-firing in the brain than simply telling the truth! So, I believe MR can be used as lie-detector, but this is a different story!
Well, alright!
Dictionary.com: an⋅ec⋅dote
-noun
a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.
On Occam's Razor, if my life is empty it adheres to OR, if the region I live in adheres to OR it must be empty, and so on with the whole world and the universe! What is the principle of OR in evolution? That there should only be a few species!
But alright, OR is only meant for the theoretical expression where two competing theories are in the race and they are equivalent and one of them is more complex than the other.
I'd say if the "soul"/bodiless mind is confirmed, a revision of Dualism may follow!
As photons are forever photons and matter once that it is converted to photons will never be matter again, I'm also wondering about the infinity. But still this issue of matter and photons surely gives some direction?
It seems that you're question may be too big to be answered as one has yet some steps to go until it is determined what is what.
This is not the photoelectric effect. Digression besides, what is the explanation behind the continued stream of electrical power that is generated by electrons? It seems to be pushing in one direction only. In the case of the conversion of electricity to light by the light bulb, what's the story there? I guess I'm puzzled by electricity, but I see no direct conversion/connection with the photons either by themselves or in interaction with one another.
Sorry about the stuff on Photoelectric effect, let's stick to the Pair Production! Sure, I agree with you as with every good physics book! I affirm that you still have failed to supply your case of "Interaction of two high-energy γ photons..." as I have never heard or read about any such interaction that's supposed to result in new particles! This is the main point!
The case of electricity. Again, I agree with your version of the (conventional) physics in year 2009. However, it's not the issue. The issue is on how it's possible for electrons to carry power from f. x. water dam power production to whatever use there is. The actual matter in the electrical cables is never consumed which should somehow mean that the electrons that act as medium for power transport fall back to the start. Yet, this assumed fall-back is seldom or never accounted for in the ordinary physics literature. This seems to be one of the holes in physics. Your story doesn't fill this hole, I think.
My view is that existence is not pointless, but it's a view that has come in bits and pieces. I've had to cut through much nonsense until I come to where I'm today.
Of course, I hold onto terms like "soul" and "God" to make it into infinity. Without an infinity to be the goal of collective consciousness, I sense we are cut short and that loss of real meaning is imminent.
If I'm to hold an atheist view, I agree with you, but I give preference to this deep sense within me of meaning, possibility of infinity and so. I don't think it's possible to say that purpose is an illusion with certainty.
To me "God" is nothing more than "God"-substance, entity, mechanism, function. There is nothing almighty about it. "God" (in quotes since it's nothing like the traditional divinity) is very much a dormant phenomenon in my eyes. It can't save a rat's ass. On the other hand, the theory is that when you die you get caught up by this "thing" and there may be things you can do in the after-life. I use the word "God" because of the ultimate nature of that word.
In a sense I'm a minimalist-deist much like Paul Horwich's approach to truth-theory.
I heartily agree with prof. Atar. The belief in Infinity, God solves meaning and the host of other problems!
nameless writes: "'Belief'... solves (replaces)... 'critical thought' ('problematical' for some)!"
I give you this picture. Imagine that you have a good deal of pebbles strewn out on the floor. All these pebbles represent truths. Atheism has this tendency to be the act of laying one's arms around most of these pebbles, but not all. Religiousness has this tendency to lay the arms around a much greater area than just the pebbles so you get a lot of empty room within those arms as well. What I'm trying to say is that Atheism is likely to cut the future too limited while Religiousness gets the future too wide and includes too much. Therefore, being religious can represent a better critical thought than Atheism! I see where you're going, nameless, and I respect your view. I think it's too easy to suggest Atheism represents critical thought!
Do you mind hooking up your metaphysics with some of the literature in this area? What have you been reading? It looks to me that you propagate a kind of idealism. Is this correct? What do you think of Berkeley, for example? Which philosopher do you think is closest to your own views? Are you drawing on particular inspiration in the regular, academic literature? I'll vote when I know more about what you think. It has this strangeness about it, but firstly I recognise a little Heraclitus there. Can you identify with a kind of nominalism? As I read it, people exist in flux, but I find this counterintuitive. I like Phenomenology too, but I use that angle in, let's say, Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, and a little in Philosophy of Science. To insert it in Metaphysics is new to me, at least.
I acknowledge the flow of time and that we are always in a new moment. Still, I find this a guarantee from nature of not becoming unstable. Whatever, I've voted "Disagree". I'm not a big reader of metaphysics, but I can make out this. Following Descartes' I find, like him, that there's a mind's fortress in thinking. I also add consistency and coherency to that and the very mind itself. When I step into the external world, I expect an equal degree of consistency and coherency that I've in my mind, brain. So the data starts to stream in and there's buzzing around. After a while, I find that reality is this plot of steadiness, fixtures, stability. The stories of human culture tells of great accomplishments and there's no reason to believe that this will cease. So there I am, strung up in this harness of my mind, negotiating the rules of reality that, when understood, are a pleasure and are constantly presenting opportunities. In the end, we'll all be artists, painting our dreams and encountering dream-creatures!
Who are my metaphysical friends? Descartes is one for certain. Maybe Augustin, maybe Hegel, Leibniz is a friend, Kant has been a traditional friend, but I'm beginning to have doubts of him. That's it. Shoot the rest!
Count me in! I have psychic powers of telepathy yet those powers only yield in "a certain light from a certain angle".
A bigger EU? No, seriously, I think there's been some talking of Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Ukraine. Perhaps there are others,
imminently speaking.
Here are a couple links: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union.
Jester claims that EU is a cartel of states and I respond: "USA is a cartel of states". Therefore by Jester's own words: "And as any cartel it seeks to dumb down freedom, therefore it must be detrimental to the individual."
I think it doesn't hold. Government serves a natural role in coordination of efforts. Still, EU seems to be one of the most robust democratic systems in the world. No?
I find it funny how some individuals need to have every decision at their doorstep. Is it truly important for you to know your personal legislator? It's almost like admitting that nothing can be done without having something personal in it and I find that this has been shown not to be true. It's indeed possible to make good decisions for people who you don't know personally.
This is just my opinion, but I cherish the EU, not for dumbing down anything, but for keeping the progression up.
(It's a small point, but EU has been playing a counterweight to a possible "divide and conquer" by USA. And look, isn't the Euro
stronger than the Dollar!)
Jester writes (the following quotes are this user's): "You can't say goverment serves a 'natural role'. What is a 'natural role'?"
I think it's plausible that there are levels where there's necessity of management and these can be local, county, (state), national, EU for instance and UN. I think these are "natural" levels at where new management is instituted.
Quote: Personal legislator? I have no ideea what that is. I didn't go to any elections in my life including the euro-elections. You know, a relation to the legislator that's personal. I've just found it funny to write it this way. Another way to say it is "to have one's cock into all that's going on". That's not so good perhaps. Please, turn away from this lewd language. :) Regarding your inactive role in politics, I find it a little weak as I think it sets you outside the possibility to complain about anything. I do hope you vote in the future! :) Quote: What is good is what my will intends, you can't force good onto people. Should I rape a woman since I can make it pleasurable for her? I think this regards management and I've already answered, but it can be noted that EU has been a driving force for making human rights a part of legislation in Europe. If I skip you here, can you, please, clarify? Quote: The progression is in fact bureaucratization. We have local authority, state authority and now superstate authority. I don't see any good in this. How many MEPs/population are there? I guess you have a valid point. Yet, I find myself forced to think of the solid impact the EU has and will continue to have in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and the three smaller countries bordering to Russia, next to Finland. Do you think individual countries in Europe would be able to help these countries through the transition from the curtain fall to now? The number of MEPs can always be questioned, but how many members do you want England to send to the EU parliament?
Getting elected as an independent citizen is a shot in the dark, I think, and therefore it has no practical relevance to EU parliament. At least, this is how I perceive.
If the accounting isn't cleared, I agree, corruption creates a credibility problem and surely, wasting money is no good. Let's hope this improves.
By myself: "Wisdom is that which makes a grounding for a timeless decision."
Edit: "Wisdom is that which makes a timeless grounding for a decision." Decisions, I guess, have a more temporary nature. Still the two sentences are just mere suggestions.
Is there some part of Leibniz's Monadology you like to cite in this regard? To my knowledge, this Hume's notion of custom or habit has been standing there like a rock for ages! I'm currently unaware of anyone trying to clear it out of the way.
You may want to look up something:
Problem of induction on Wikipedia
The Problem of Induction on SEP
When I write that each instant is sufficient in themselves very opposite to Hume's view, I mean that we are affected by a combination of natural laws that are necessarily continuous and coherent. This is exactly opposite to Hume and his notion that our experience of nature is just a habit or custom. Clearly, I argue differently. So be it, I don't have the time right now to make this whole. I'll be back.
Edit: I think there is an example of a person putting a book in a drawer in Hume's writings. According to Hume then, we have no reason to believe that the book is in the drawer the next time we enter the office. This is counter to my views of the necessarily continuous and coherent because I believe that just this instance is enough to make us believe that the book is still there unless there are conditions that can make it otherwise. The history of our minds show that it's impossible to change as a person from one instant to another. The continuity of the mind is bound to move forwards in time. We reason through the seasons and the years and it can't be otherwise. The mind is forced to be that history. I think the nature follows in similar fashion.
I want to make myself clear. (To mix me up with "Hume's Custom or Habit" in this thread is absolutely wrong!)
Factors
1. Consistency and coherency (deduced from Descartes' Meditations)
2. The sum of natural laws (the usual consideration of our beings in nature)
3. Logics and mathematics are necessary aspects of nature and our minds (I hold the view that logics and mathematics are for real in a variety of senses)
4. The factors of 1. through 3. bridge our experience from one instant to the next and so on. Forever?
5. Point beside: 1. through 4. refute, in my opinion, "Hume's Custom or Habit", the problem of induction.
I'm absolutely killing "Hume's Custom or Habit". As it says, I'm against Hume on this.
This schema can be used in every instance of the universe.
Examples (I'll provide two):
The book in the drawer example. We are in an office. We put a book in a drawer. We go out of the office. We go out of the house. We go out of
the laboratory (a little bit unusual, a whole house in a laboratory). We wait 24 hrs (partying, binge drinking, whatever). We go back into the
laboratory. We go into the house. We go into the office. We look into the drawer and there is our book. We can be absolutely certain of this in
the first instance from my argument. In this example, we discount natural disasters, ie. big meteors landing on the laboratory and so on. We
also discount any dishonest activity in this regard.
The sun rising the next morning example. We have a fabulous day and enjoy life. We go to bed in the evening and we expect the sun to rise the next morning. In this, we make the following inference. Our Sun in our solar system is not about to die, exploding and consuming earth, ceasing to support life on earth. We don't know of any threatening meteors on the verge to devastate life on earth. The earth keeps its path and tilting pattern because there is nothing there to prevent this. We live in relative safety as we are outside earthquake zones and dubious neighbourhoods. (Added: ) We are also not threatened by global nuclear war. We wake up in the morning to a clear, blue sky and a beautiful sunrise. This sunrise is absolutely certain this day, Sept. 18. 2009. We can be absolutely certain of this in the first instance from my argument.
Edit: Instead of making the direct predictions, I think it's worthwhile to ask oneself of what there is that can be different. Why should the nature be otherwise? Then you can make the predictions.
I don't defend induction. I try to nullify the notion, "Hume's Custom or Habit". Perhaps I can replace it with "necessity". So you claim that the laws of nature that the science community has worked out are conforming to "Hume's Custom or Habit"? I've been thinking that "Hume's Custom or Habit" is concerning our ordinary sense of events that follow in order.
If one is to be consistent on your view, there are no laws of nature! I find it hard to believe that the external world, nature, as a whole has no rules, laws, necessary connections, beside that we make up in our minds, namely "Hume's Custom or Habit". Is it the case that there is order in nature only because we are disposed to see this order? I find that incredibly implausible.
I mean one thing is the human nature, but I find that you are attacking every pattern of nature, whatever it is, and reduce it to "Hume's Custom or Habit" and human dispositions.
Bottom line: I think you aren't serious about natural laws. The question of causal relations may be up for grabs in metaphysics, but it's not questioned in philosophy of science. There are laws of nature. Finito. These are necessary in order for nature to work and they are beyond the lives of people on planet Earth.
By comparison, in epistemology it's generally accepted that knowledge can obtain. You should easily see the analogy to philosophy of science.
I interpret "Hume's Custom or Habit" to apply to people's possibility to grasp nature and accordingly imposing his skeptical argument regarding future events. I don't think Hume is attacking a possible notion of necessary connections in nature. Further then, this allows me to nevertheless posit "laws of nature", but you will have to interpret them as "necessary connections in nature". In grasping nature, we have come a long way and Hume is of course wrong if he has been thinking we'd be unable to get there. However, I have a few doubts as to the exactness of our findings and whether we'll achieve utter objectivity. In the meantime we'll be working hard.
Edit: Some small change:
"2. The sum of natural laws (the usual consideration of our beings in nature)"
of post Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:26 am, I alter to
"2. The sum of "natural laws" alternatively known as the "necessary connections of nature" or "necessary structures of nature" (the usual
consideration of our beings in nature)"
Rortabend writes: "You can't just get rid of induction!"
I can criticise it. If it proves unreasonable after sustained attacks, I suggest the alternative view can be called "view of necessity" or whatever people find reasonable to put in its place.
Rortabend writes: "You don't know what my views are on laws. I was presenting the Humean argument against induction. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say that causal relations are not questionned in philosophy of science. There are countless articles and books that debate the nature of causal relations. You can't just end this debate using ex cathedra pronouncements like 'Finito'!"
I don't know your views on laws. I'm merely onto what you state. There is no intention to offend you. Also, it should read "the question of causal relations may be up for grabs in metaphysics, but laws of nature are not questioned in philosophy of science."
Rortabend writes: "That is precisely what he is doing. Have you been reading Hume or a secondary source?"
I read Hume to assert a criticism of the abilities of consciousness to gain cognition of nature and nature's workings. As such, it's an internal view, bringing forward the fact that we are not intimate with nature to the degree that we can know what nature "is doing". So his view concentrates on the limitation of consciousness and doesn't say very much definitive about "laws of nature".
In Philosophyforums, I've made this quote:
From David Hume - AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING - SECTION V - SCEPTICAL SOLUTION OF THESE DOUBTS - PART I - http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html
Quote: "This principle is Custom or Habit. For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to renew the
same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the
effect of Custom. By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. We only point out a principle
of human nature, which is universally acknowledged, and which is well known by its effects. Perhaps we can push our enquiries no farther, or
pretend to give the cause of this cause; but must rest contented with it as the ultimate principle, which we can assign, of all our conclusions
from experience. It is sufficient satisfaction, that we can go so far, without repining at the narrowness of our faculties because they will
carry us no farther. And it is certain we here advance a very intelligible proposition at least, if not a true one, when we assert that, after
the constant conjunction of two objects--heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity-- we are determined by custom alone to expect the
one from the appearance of the other. This hypothesis seems even the only one which explains the difficulty, why we draw, from a thousand
instances, an inference which we are not able to draw from one instance, that is, in no respect, different from them. Reason is incapable of
any such variation. The conclusions which it draws from considering one circle are the same which it would form upon surveying all the circles
in the universe. But no man, having seen only one body move after being impelled by another, could infer that every other body will move after
a like impulse. All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning."
There is absolutely no need to be confused. It is I who say we should get rid of induction, both because it's weak and because it's skeptical, a very problem.
I write: "I don't think Hume is attacking a possible notion of necessary connections in nature."
Then Rortabend answers: "That is precisely what he is doing. Have you been reading Hume or a secondary source?"
I believe I'm quite thorough on Hume in what this thread is about. I'm asking you if you can give a quote of Hume where he states that there are no necessary connections in nature since you say that Hume does just that.
If Hume's Custom or Habit isn't skeptical, then what is? It's like we tumble about in this world and throw out assertions wildly. No, I believe we are more rational than that and as I've pointed out with the factors 1. through 4., there's room for improvement.
Rortabend writes: "Have you been reading Hume or a secondary source?"
My leap into this problem has been initiated by George Couvalis, The Philosophy of Science - Science and Objectivity in the spring of 2000. From there, I've been reading various excerpts. I've been thinking you like to know. If you want to prove that I'm off the track regarding my knowledge of Hume, you should come up with some references, preferably to the original texts, but I like very much that you come up with quotes.
Hume in SECTION IV, PART I from AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING given in http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html:
Quote: "When I see, for instance, a Billiard-ball moving in a straight line towards another; even suppose motion in the second ball should
by accident be suggested to me, as the result of their contact or impulse; may I not conceive, that a hundred different events might as well
follow from that cause? May not both these balls remain at absolute rest? May not the first ball return in a straight line, or leap off from
the second in any line or direction? All these suppositions are consistent and conceivable. Why then should we give the preference to one,
which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this
preference."
The reason for my interest in his knowledge of physics lies in this quote. I'm a little interested in snooker and there is no doubt that these people in the sport know what they're doing in playing those balls. There should be a very real possibility for constructing a machine that with a cue strikes a ball A with a given power into ball B and that the final position of ball B is known down to very minuteness even before the machine delivers the strike, ie. that the machine will be capable of doing this according to laws of nature. You let the machine strike the ball A once and then you reposition the balls. The following strikes are known, ie. final position of ball B! Thereby I find "...that a hundred different events might as well follow from that cause?" strange indeed. It doesn't take much physics to understand that the assertion of Hume here is false.
What I note in your quote (of Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:47 am) is that Hume speaks of the idea "of power or necessary connection." It's also remarkable that the title of the two works relevant to Philosophy of Science relates to human nature by "A Treatise of Human Nature" and "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding". It leads me to believe that, as I've written earlier, "I read Hume [such that Hume is] to assert a criticism of the abilities of consciousness to gain cognition of nature and nature's workings. As such, it's an internal view, bringing forward the fact that we are not intimate with nature to the degree that we can know what nature "is doing". So his view concentrates on the limitation of consciousness and doesn't say very much definitive about "laws of nature"." This means in short that we come up empty in regards to objective idea or knowledge of the necessary conncetions of nature. I speculate that if Hume has wanted to make a global skeptical argument in Epistemology he would have written a book about it and it's likewise in Philosophy of Science. He has had the option to be elaborate on nature in the external, "laws of nature" sense, but he fails to publish anything extensive. To interpret Hume in the sense that he's addressing relations outside the human nature scope of his works is to take it too far. He's simply to swift to bring about a plausible argument beyond this scope that is already mentioned.
However, if we look at it then what about chemical reactions such as making a bonfire from wood and the numerous other instances. When we are hungry, we need food to drive our biochemical engine or else we die. Let's take the example of the bicycle. You have this chain from the gearwheel with the pedals going back to the gearwheel with the bicycle-wheel. Certainly, we don't find a "chained" connection in nature like that. The necessary connections we are discussing are of the kind that it takes clouds in the sky for rain to happen. It takes combustible objects to make fire. It takes sturdy or hard materials to make constructions. I think I can continue endlessly.
I sense this isn't nailed to the wall yet. I'm not satisfied until "Hume's Custom or Habit" lies 6ft under.
We experience "all", the sum of laws of nature, in the "instant". This situation confounds us because it's so complex. Ideally, we like to "isolate" each feature, law, of nature by themselves and thus, we can be certain of this law having effect under given conditions. There's nothing unreasonable about this, although it may be incredibly difficult to make this ideal happen.
Wootah writes: "Can you see how logically anything is possible when two balls interact in billiards?" Are you implying there can be a nuclear explosion in this instance? In my machine example, are you in doubt that the machine delivers ball B by a strike on it to the exact location every time? If you have been reading me, logics and mathematics are a part of the solution of our unbreakable belief of the machine's deliverance of ball B. Let me repeat: Quote: "Factors 1. Consistency and coherency (deduced from Descartes' Meditations) 2. The sum of natural laws (the usual consideration of our beings in nature) 3. Logics and mathematics are necessary aspects of nature and our minds (I hold the view that logics and mathematics are for real in a variety of senses) 4. The factors of 1. through 3. bridge our experience from one instant to the next and so on. Forever? 5. Point beside: 1. through 4. refute, in my opinion, "Hume's Custom or Habit", the problem of induction. ... This schema can be used in every instance of the universe."
Where's the deficiency of my understanding of Hume, "Hume's Custom or Habit"?
Rortabend writes: "False of what we have observed so far. How do you know it won't turn into a chicken next time? How do you know that emeralds are green and not grue? You can't solve the problem of induction with physics. It is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one."
What is false? The notion of this machine and ball B? Why can't you address what I actually write? I agree that this problem isn't solved by physics, but I see it as philosophy to make it clear what foundations, assumptions, that we build on when we are in the world, both subjectively and objectively. It may be that I thereby can be able to put physics in a new light and also the consequences of its descriptions. I suggest that you reread the thread and make the appropriate quotes.
Goodman's Paradox is a wholly different argument and I really think it's possible to deal with Problem of Induction and Goodman's Paradox separately. Still, I'm trying to attack Goodman's Paradox also in the Epistemology section.
That, "you can't settle the problem of induction through experiments or an appeal to laws of nature", is not true! We understand "laws of nature" differently. I believe you take it to be the result of the sciences, but I use it as ""2. The sum of "natural laws" alternatively known as the "necessary connections of nature" or "necessary structures of nature" (the usual consideration of our beings in nature)" from post: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:07 pm as part of a response to yours.
Please note that I use "the sum" of natural laws. I simply don't need to point at a specific "law of nature", "feature of nature" other than "lawfulness" in nature that enables patterns of all sorts including the emergence of life and consciousness! I find it cool!
Apart from the striking initial feature that I exist, I do think and when I analyse a chain of thoughts in this first, single span of time I find I can make consistent and coherent thoughts and my mind can be no different. I don't need to wonder if I still can think the next day! Primarily, then it's contradictive to your own life and mind and experience of this single span of time, instance, principally. To understand this, is to understand some of nature! No induction is needed!
Is it necessary for me to repeat this argument every day in order to believe in it? No! Once I've made my argument, I can rely on it for the rest of the future as being a part of my mental, intellectual history. It's the same with the external world. When I go to bed tonight, I can definitely rely on waking up tomorrow! Is this supposed to go away? No, not without a good reason for being so. This is the consequence of being serious about a single span of time, instance. Again, there's no induction here!
When I go to bed tonight, I can definitely rely on wakening up tomorrow without induction! It's the "lawfulness" of nature that is this way! This is the last time! I point to necessity of nature, assumptions. Hume points to custom or habit. We are totally in disagreement! Besides, the word "definitely" excludes induction by default, but I guess this escapes you.
I think I've already pointed out that we interpret "lawfulness", "laws of nature", differently, very differently. I take it to be the necessary structures of nature, the necessary connections of nature. I guess you take it to be some kind of applied science, like physics. It seems we're stuck here, in discussing.
There are no ex cathedra proclamations (except the instance of "Finito") in any of what I write! I've never been thinking that when in "a single span of time, instance" I make certain considerations of nature that I would have to defend the "necessary connections in nature" (I therefore used "Finito" because I've been thinking I've been justified in literature and blatantly so. This may be mistaken in my approach, I'm sorry!). One note: If I consider this "single span of time, instance" to each "kind" of separate "happening" in nature, I claim that I still escape the induction. Alright, (when being in "a single span of time, instance") 1. I exist in the world, I see colours, substance and an incredible number of impressions, 2. I have this body I can feel and I can use it to feel the external world, 3. My body doesn't explode, but is perfectly whole through this time-frame, 4. What I see in this scenery (which may be all sorts) are patterns that I can relate to just as my body, there are no objects emerging in thin air, no sudden levitation, there's calmness and persistent objects, 5. Am I surprised in this environment? Basically not! The balls roll on the pool table when they are being moved, I sense, feel other people when I'm being touched and I feel objects against my body when I touch them, lean on them, lie on them and so on, I also sense gravity as I raise myself from the floor or bench, I sense gravity when I drop a Billiard-ball to the floor or on the pool table. Depending on your "first" "single span of time, instance" as a cognising mind and according to circumstances, there are therefore numerous instances you can draw from it. Your body is whole! It doesn't levitate. It doesn't rupture as such! The arm doesn't loosen from it and floats off in the air. You can breathe! You feel hungry! You discover you can eat! You can feel your stomach being filled! Unnecessary to say, perhaps, I think Merleau-Ponty's "Primacy of Perception" is the kind of angle I'm thinking about. The conclusion is that there are many inferences to make in "a single span of time, instance" when considering "necessary connections in nature". Although perceptions and cognitions may be very naive in the beginning, they uncover incredibly much from those instances not normally thought about because nature appears natural. Consistency and coherency are very important features of our minds, but how often do we consider it, even when we think of what we've thought? Surely unusual considerations, but they break down induction! (Finito!)
So excellent we could clear this up!
I, for one, have no wish for the free ride on this forum and if business isn't doing that well, you may perhaps add the possibility for paying (in a donating fashion, voluntarily) for PN forum, or alternatively, make it possible for people to buy an online subscription to PN itself to provide for the alibi/"alibi" of also being a regular on the forum. It should only take a button on the shop page.
And for all that, I certainly hope business is well, but I hope opportunity arises still the same.
Addition of some information and points that may help some troubled people. This is posted here just because of the psychiatry issue.
By me, Terje [L. F. Olsnes-]Lea writes:
Motivations: Sense of power, sense of leadership, sense of being above law (ie: demi-god), taking on characteristics from the
victim (hereafter called the "object"), letting the good intentions (usually from relief of force) influence the abusers or the
abusers future plans.
Strategies: Control of environment, create a safe environment for control, create social bindings or 'contracts' to grow companionship and sense of partnership.
Tactics: Tight control of the victim's sensations in every form, tight security, control on sensations of relief, good sensations and punishment (torture, degradation, other...). Note: Every well calculated torture session needs an actuator (just use a dictionary, because this is technical) and the object gets to hear these things like 'Hold on', 'Wait a little' or 'Keep it up'. The requirement for the actuator is that the person remains the only person somewhat emotionally connected to the object therefore most often placed in somewhat distance to the scene, like in the back of the room, 'supporting' the object in order to fulfill the sessions' objectives whether it is about physical or psychic limits or something else. The art of torture is about keeping the object alive.. as well as inflicting pain or other, so some care will be given perhaps.
String of feelings: Ruthlessness, cynicism, pleasure, guarantee of reward (ie: sense of winning), sense of scaring themselves by inflicting their own horrors to the object, pleasure from witnessing weird experiences and sharing them.
Techniques:
- Degradation usually makes the access to the object easier on later occations simply because the object's behaviour becomes more erratic due to paradox of self-realization, self-constructiveness and the object hereafter usually neglects important security measures. Degrading actions to the object that's ...
- Emotional triggers are usually created by inflicting harsh pains that goes to the brink of forcing the object into subconsciousness. The attitude the abuser use at a later stage in relation to the object is the same as if the abuser would repeat the inflicting action. This leads to the real intent of infliction from the abuser's side to the object. The object usually goes stunned or show resignment by the sensation of the attitude of the abuser. (This shouldn't be mixed with sudden shift from a very enduring distressful situation to the very relief from distress which could emulate something similar).
- Alienation makes the object feel emotionally remote to oneself and detached in social relations. The conditioning makes the object recluse and alone which in turn singles it out and makes actions to it easier in future. The application of a density of harsh experiences into the object's subconsciousness makes this one nicely packed and strapped.
- In-seam-operation makes it a point to move in line with object's activities. It makes the object draw the easiest conclusions of its prior whereabouts. Although it has a somewhat tumbling mind, the object is likely to come up with a conclusion like if it has been asleep for a short while or suffered a mild concussion during play. Obviously a gap of opportunities opens up in between.
- Duplication or emulation is set into action with the overall target to make the object attach its memory to well known things or places while it is illusionary. If the object finally remembered some fragments, the technique could simulate nightmares or 'Freudian' ideas of the object's apparant discomfort and strong sensations of pains that it probably almost immediately will try to formulate to a person of whom the object trust or find trustworthy.
- Telepathy exists. It is just a matter of hypersensitivity and a focused affection and attention and the will to carry the ability. Telepathy is being used to lure objects to them, especially unaware children and other uncritical beings. So, if you hear a voice in your head telling you to go somewhere, you should NOT. Really! They may also use telepathy to make you feel tired or aroused or make you feel you make the right choice over some issue.
Warning! These 'people' form networks and exchange information from the rape/torture scenes and data concerning the condition of the objects during and after the session and this may be handed over to other 'persons'. Alternatively, one or more abusers/torturers/technicians from the first session may follow up alongside others for the next abuses. So this may continue!
Additionally, there are 'handshake' principles and mental exchanges of pictures with, perhaps, mental pictures of their victims
in text describing the session or role-playing the rape/abuse with their loved ones.
<>Malur and taint of malur: Some of these, perhaps most, come with taints on their souls. The taint is called 'malur' (don't mix it
with some Indian place), a phenomena that causes them to faint and experience their own recoil from their awful, horrible actions.
The physical representation of this is in the form of a brown or black wart. You usually get a strange/ugly feeling when you see
these things. Touching them gives you some of the same representation. These warts extend into the central nervous system and has
a deep impact on the person who is wearing this taint. Malur-taints also come with red/light red areas below the eyes. When you
touch these things, the people wearing them will remember what caused it and what action that caused it. It is quite irritating
for the people who are wearing these things and some go to great lengths in order to have it removed or camouflaged. You may
also get these taints from attaching your affection to the recordings of these horrible actions. Two things: 1. It is better
to be good than (taint-)warty. 2. Keep kids away from recorded material. The garbage ('snuff') should be stored where professionals
work. You may also receive the malur-taint from telepathically transferred material, scenes or images or other. So you should be
carefully on guard with the mind's eye and thus avoiding too much telepathic contact when being around perverts. Be careful on
what you turn the mind's eye to!
Sensations: Usually these abusing actions come with burning sensations, strangulation sensations, suffocation sensations and blunt blows or crush sensations.
Notice and Countermeasures
Further notice:
- The Evil That Men Do (1984). The title should have included women, someone notified me. Doctors torture as well. The healer is the dealer. Finally, I think have hit the right movie! Some 12 years have gone since I saw this movie, but it is something about a torturer nicknamed 'The Technician'. It is very educative when it comes to the moods these people hold against you.
- D.A.R.Y.L. Reverse engineering and asshole management.
- The Changeling. If you begin to show abilities, they will cuff you to a wheelchair.
- Rainman. These people buy and sell human beings. It is pretty psychiatric and pretty 'autistic'.
[Removed.]
- Silent [Moral] Fall. Richard Dreyfus and the classic comment: It is incredible what these people can achieve during extreme pressure.
Countermeasures:
Log/diary: Create a log or diary. Make sure you get your things through according to your planner.
Relations: Stay in touch with people you trust.
Isolation rule: Isolate if things get wrong. It may help to calm your head for a number of days in order to look at the basic things over again.
Counterthreat: If you can counterthreat, it may be helpful, but you should be ascertain that you have the odds... On the other hand, it may be wise to keep things in secret from your enemy in order to get to results.
Formalization: Make sure you seek a formalization, like seeing a therapist or a physician. If you have
knowledge, you should make a complaint right away for the sake of record. You shouldn't worry
too much about making a complaint. It can only help you!
(I add some words to help people overcome trouble from living under the power of lunatics. These are:)
Make sure to get the copy, hard or soft, of the most important parts or all of your journal. Don't leave out this point!
Telepathy: It is critical that people learn themselves telepathy. It makes your everyday a lot safer. You also detect danger much more easily and your social skills become much more adept and acute.
Remark: I you consider suicide, then do not! Allow the assholes to die first (like in 1. place).
Because you are usually good and they are bad. AND see here: Here is a sound procedure of likelihood of greater chance and less
misery. It follows... Farber's Theory of Suicide S = f ( PIC.DEC.DIG.TS / Su.HFT ) where the key is ( / = dividend as on the
calcualtor)
S = Probability of Suicide
PIC = Frequency of Production of Personalities Injured in Their Sense of Competence
DEC = Demands for the Exercising of Competence
DIG = Demands for Interpersonal Giving
TS = Tolerance of Suicide
Su = Availability of Succorance
HFT = Degree of Hope in the Future Time Perspective of the Society (where you are, you can change it)
NOW if you take these considerations into account of your own situation, you can quickly identify the focus of your work and
efforts. (I will write more later so that it becomes more clear what to do.)
Source: Issue nr. 20 of Philosophy Now. There is a link to the site under Links on all 4 pages under the welcoming page.
[Edit, 04.03.2011:] Words added to countermeasures. [End of edit.]
I can't see how QM can refute anything without itself holding objectivity in its body of system even if it's wholly relative. I think you also need to back up this refutation and tell me exactly what it is that has been refuted. I mean, some parts of physics still stand, right? QM, itself, must stand.
The accomplishments of the natural sciences are so massive, I refuse to acknowledge this swiftness of assertion! Technology as basic level of science and our concepts and descriptions are to great degree very effective.
Conclusion: the objectivity of science remains until we are futile in using it and I can't even imagine that on the horizon of future. I'm quite new to QM and I haven't studied physics at university level, still I'd like the concrete progress empirically expressed and I've yet to see such in an extensive manner. Pointing to the Schrodinger's cat, I sense that there are difficulties within QM that you are not so eager to tell about. I'll be gathering more information and I'll see what the future brings.
You have your subjectivity 'proven' by QM and we'll see what it amounts to in the future. Though, when I read about QM, it's not like anything. It is defined as a body of theory concerning quants or quarks. I can't say that the Double Slit experiment isn't objective.
I'll keep the theory-laden observations to more mundane stuff, at least not the controversial.
It's my belief that children have limited possibilities for own theories and thus they make the observations. If they see a green ball, there's a "thought"/imprint/signal in the brain that corresponds to/is this green ball. If they see it again the same thing happen over again in their brain. Perhaps they also have associated thought like "I like that green ball", but this is something that comes in addition to the signal in the brain from the mere observation.
I recognise the little deviation of "I like blue better than red", but I think we agree that your driver's license requires you to hold a kind of "objective" view. It's the same thing in science. You need to be up to the level in order to count in. Otherwise, I expect quick ejection!
Besides, the Wigner's friend isn't more than speculation. Roger Penrose thinks so, at least. If you think otherwise, you can give me the empirical consequences, not more thoughts.
Since you, nameless, seem to reiterate my point in this, that observations are not theory-laden to any decisive degree in the natural sciences. This means that the scientific community is effective in deciding what the experiment data is and what the theory is. The object is in a sense Kuhn and his paradigms because he seems to mix the cumulative nature of data with a given theory, at that time. This is something I find to be wrong. I'm sorry I'm short, but the conclusion you've written, is the one I agree with as well.
PS: I believe Lee Smolin asks for empirical evidence in relation to string-theory.
PS2: In traffic, it's best to keep an eye on others as well as the environment, eg. trees, obstacles, posts, fences, the whole lot.
PS3: In science, if you fail to have cognition of what the 9 others get from the experiment, I think you're in trouble. If somebody does add fantasies to the observations, perhaps somebody should find something else to do.
PS4: "Sacred cows"! Huh! I have no sacred cows, but I try to be constructive in relation to reality and meaningful human activity.
Systems of checks and balances have proven incredibly useful in the past. We use that in every instance we wish to quantify. I can just mention HES - Health, Environment, Security and my case is done. There is a lot to mention in relation to Unions. If you live in Europe, especially Germany, Scandinavia or France, you'll find that Unions are embedded into society. Unions have also forced laws into motion regarding employment and the whole lot. If you fall out with your boss, they can't simply kick you out! This is clearly reasonable. If someone doesn't like your face, they can't treat you badly. Your face, in lack of a host of informalities, isn't determining your pay. Quite extensively, Unions guarantee or at least work for "equal pay for equal work". Considering that production of services and products accounts for such a great deal of order in a country, it's certainly reasonable that worker's rights are in place and that the worker sits equal to the employer at the "table". While you may be able to mention some less favourable qualities with the Unions, you should remember that the welfare of the worker enables the worker to give proper upbringing to the kids of the family whether the kids become mechanics or academics. You should also bear in mind that the next Einstein may just as well be a child of an ordinary worker as it may be the child of an academic. The work and the role of Unions are intuitive ethically speaking. I conclude that the foundation of the Unions is rock solid, perhaps they turn out to be the very bedrock.
I find the Unions too big to have any low-life activity going on. This means the Unions are largely non-corrupt, representative, and transparent. My experience with Unions have been only positive. I've found no dishonest power-play. The Union-representatives, locally, have the position because of support among the members. It's fair play.
The generative pattern of the universe should suggest that it's both causal and determined, but is it coherent? In this sense, one has to think coherency as it appears or has the possibility to appear to us. I think that the answer lies in Chaos theory or in the spin of the atoms. Is the spin of the atoms forever beyond us? Possibly. It may very well be the whole chain of causality and determination is beyond us in the way nature appears to us and as far as we are beings of that nature.
The mind is opposite, I find. I think it's coherent, but is it causal and determined? Here as well, I have to suggest the spin of the atoms as the solution and that this may very well be beyond us as well.
So, the mind is coherent and the universe is causal and determined. How do they go together? There's also the question of limitation here. We are born into this world, but when have we learnt enough of it to absolutely understand it? As the solution to both of these issues lies in the spin of the atoms, I think we will never catch the beginning nor the end of it. I don't think we'll find "the first spin of the atom" or get hold, cognitively, of the chain of spins. These issues are therefore beyond us forever, I suggest.
It's funny to think of, in Epistemology I'm a Coherentist, in Philosophy of Mind it can go either way, Reductionist or Substance Dualist and lastly in Philosophy of Science, I'm a Scientific Realist. Reality is absurd!
ala1993 writes: "Imagine what doctors, in a society filled with deontologists, would be like! If an obese man had a life-threatening heart attack and came into the emergency room at the same time as a healthy man who had been in an accident but was in a stable condition, would such a doctor be justified in treating the 'fit' patient first on the grounds that the obese man allegedly made the choice not to lose weight and thus increased the risk of having the heart attack?"
I see no reason why the doctor shouldn't treat the cases based on an urgency priority as you probably would say. There are good possibilities for getting slim when one is obese and even if in the specific case there's not, then there's still obvious moral duty to rescue the obese person. As you write, in this situation one can treat both people and prevent death to happen to either. So does this necessarily say that this doctor is not a deontologist? I certainly don't think so!
Concerning the reasons, if this doctor receives two patients and both of them are dying and hypothetically speaking, the doctor knows the background of both, that is one of them is likely to enter a new emergency in short time while the other can recover nicely and never need treatment again. I'd say this is a situation where the utilitarian and the deontologist can agree possibly. Either way, in reality, hospitals are probably few of those situations and if they do, perhaps patients get ER on first come, first serve basis which is, maybe, a better ethical option.
Quote:
"It is not possible to proclaim oneself to be a utilitarian or a deontologist (not least because to proclaim the former is to affirm
the latter - we proclaim because we think that a certain thing should be done). The best we can do is to have principles that we are
willing to disregard in certain circumstances."
Do you say that it's impossible to hold an intellectual position in Ethics? Either way, shouldn't you then become a nihilist or ethical
skepticist, both being positions in ethics?
Quote:
"In the case of the 'river argument', are we justified in letting 22 people die when we could have saved 20 of them? The chances are
that some of them have families and dependants; probability tells us that if there are more people in one boat than in the other than
there are likely (although admittedly not definitely) to be more people in that first boat whose death would affect more people."
The options are letting 20 people get killed and having 2 people safe versus letting 2 people get killed and having 20 people safe.
Also, counting dependents of people can be done in numerous ways, let's say, if the case is that there's a prime minister or some
other important person.
Quote:
"If we are in a position to act then we do not evade action - and, consequently, responsibility - by choosing not to act (specifically
because 'not acting' is a kind of action). As such, we make a choice based on what we think is right for that situation."
What I'm writing is that it may be wise to do nothing, admitting that this is a kind of action, and thus avoiding taking part in the
death to either innocent party. This situation highlights the easiness of utilitarian theories.
Arising_uk writes: "I think if you don't know any of the people or anything about them then you save the 20 as it'll be easier to explain in court than the 2 or 22. If you know the two then you may get some understanding but none for the 22. I gets more complicated the more of them you know."
I guess I agree. If I know some of the twenty people to be good friends or otherwise, I may let the 2 people go. I'm not certain though. Rather, in this situation, the question is what you do given the 22 people are unknown to you. As I've pointed out, the River argument is meant to give the Utilitarian a bad reputation.
Quote: "I got that there was a fraction of the population beyond aid, that another fraction was within aid(are they part of the same fraction?), but got lost when the 'third' came in as living and the two-thirds dying? Who's dying and who's not?"
A third of the population is going to die no matter what. The next third is by some means possible to help, but with some risk-taking. I suggest the Deontologist is the one who accepts the risk and gives the help. The Utilitarian, I think, lets this one third perish as well making the result of having only one third of the (world) population survive. It's unclear whether the Deontologist's two-thirds will survive, but they share (to much extent) the same destiny.
Quote: "Is this saying that the Utilitarian might engage in moral triage in a crisis situation? What would the deontologist offer? But it seems strange asking you as the words appear to be anothers?"
I think both the Utilitarian and the Deontologist can engage in moral triage in a crisis situation.
Can't beauty be in both the mind and in reality?
What about "the investigation of concepts and desciptions including mathematics and the relations, logics, between them, exhaustively, in" "the search for the objective" "to the extent of plausibility, credibility. All this is for the search of the greatest wisdom"?
Philosophy of Mathematics... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
Many people may overlook mathematics because it's basically symbolic (expressed in numbers and symbols) so I include it explicitly. (This should suggest logics as well, but logics is a traditional philosophical subject.)
I don't know its history, but you may want to check out Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell.
I've been reading this thread for a while and at first I've believed that you've been going for the dogmatic religious people. This may not longer be the case. I therefore speak out as a Deist, Hobby-Philosopher. I believe I hold scientific views in my core and when I read science, it's apparent that everything I read is contestable and thus that it's not taken from authority although it may get problematic to make that Hadron-collider to work in your own home. Science as a whole is not about authority. This is obvious. When we then get to my belief of Deism, I see that I place my belief in the answer to certain anomalies of science. This answer is naturally therefore outside the sphere of science and I hold my belief in it, but that is not to say that my belief may not be wrongly placed. I may be wrong in my Deist belief! With this view I can't see where this authority is supposed to come in.
Conclusion: Some religious may not be due to authority and in the future maybe all religious views may not come from authority. I guess I can relax and be a true hobby-philosopher after all.
Please, see my God this way - the deadly, cold solution to these anomalies: abiogenesis, consciousness, existence, Universe. It, God, may be whatever, I frankly don't care (I may get disappointed in not achieving infinity)! The considerations are just stone cold logic! "...a belief in a false cause/effect..." No! And I bet you'll feel it as your life approaches DEATH!
i blame blame writes: "Are you using a god as placeholder for phenomena and processes you don't understand?"
The anomalies in science suggest there is some fantastic explanation behind it and sure I put God there, as a placeholder. It may be that
God is made an ever smaller corner, but God remains a belief of mine until all is explained properly.
i blame blame writes: "So if we were living 150 years ago, you would say that propagation of light has a fantastic explanation and god makes it propagate? Also, diseases come and go fantastically and god directly afflicts people with them..."
Yes! It doesn't mean however, that I would let my faith determine the possibilities in the actual life. I'd keep working on the problems of that day and see what remains at the time of my death. More clearly, one is first and foremost the scientist and beyond that one is in religious faith, deism.
I have chosen to add the link: http://family.jrank.org/pages/2/Abortion-Reasons-Abortions.html.
I'd say that extremely few abortions are truly necessary, but I'm in favour of those carried out still the same. People should be given the best possible environment when they come to life.
Yes, the "I" is the thing that thinks and doubts, that keeps the thoughts in line and in system, ie. in the sequence to process whatever thoughts that are to be recalled, invented, inferred, whatever. Yes, this is "I"!
For the first part: (I find it uncontroversial to equal the "I" with mind.) If I compare the mind to a digital recorder that you can hold in your hands, will you say that the recorder is a process because the content changes on its recording medium? I don't think so!
Taking this further, let's say that the mind is expressed in matter in the form of brain so that we can identify the mind with the brain, do you say that the brain is only a process because the content of the brain changes, increases? I don't think so! Even so, when the brain dies, it's reduced to its basic constituents, are you then saying that even these constituents are processes because they have been part of that brain? I don't think so!
At the end of this, I certainly don't need to call the mind a thing, I only need to call it an entity, its nature still unknown to us!
For the second part, I have the sense that I'm doing good philosophical work and I try to improve it continuously. You probably say the same about yourself. My work is generally founded in the academic philosophy, that I build on those subjects and use a minimum of description when I make the expression of this work. There is no excess in my descriptions apart from that which is made as clarification and conveyance.
I think that if you introduce life-worlds into the picture, this changes as the life-world is only your experience. So when you (ala1993) add I know that swans are white, there's already incompleteness in it, just as much as if we get exhaustive knowledge of all on earth and say swans are both black and white, we are still limited because there may be pink swans on Hitatutus in Andromeda galaxy. It's unnatural and strange to put it this way, but that's the consequence. Further one should add the dates: swans are known on earth, 1810 to 2009, before that there may be extinct pink and blue swans. We are limited, definitely.
"The word "grue" hardly means anything to people, especially outside those familiar with Goodman's P. It seems also unreasonable that if you say something means "grue" because green is to be blue sometime in the future, the future will always remain the future and the word "grue" remains meaningless. It's funny though how the paper of Goodman puts meaning to "grue" when one considers existence."
"What is a good point in attacking Goodman's P. is the fact that these changes are clearly implausibly limited to only emeralds, they can be
equally distributed to every other object in the external world. I therefore write:
"Finally, if one property of say green emeralds is to change, how can he limit this time-set change to only emeralds? Why can't you equally well
have objects beginning to levitate?" Of course, that objects suddenly are supposed to begin to levitate is extremely implausible."
Am I wrong in attacking Goodman's play with time? If he gets away with his play with time, am I wrong in attacking him in the sense that he so selectively choose emeralds (why can't it be anything or everything else?) and colour (why can't it be any other quality, property or all?). By combining all this and more, I think Goodman's Paradox falls. This is also a part of my argument: "When we are in the world, we experience continuity in a consistent and coherent way. The thoughts flow naturally through our minds. When we have these properties working in our minds and these minds are in the world, why shouldn't it be reasonable the same properties of reality that make our minds work so smoothly also govern the matters that are external to us? My point is, of course, that time is so fundamental that there is no room for properties to change as a function of time."
Rortabend writes: "Our observations of all emeralds being green in the past is perfectly compatible with the inductive claim that 'All emeralds are green' and with the claim that 'All emeralds are green'. The scandal of induction, as Hume put it, is that there doesn't seem to be any way of justifying our preference for green over grue."
Why don't we turn into Pegasuses or for that reason why don't we just die for no reason or turn into meat pulp? There are clearly deductions you can make as we exist in this world with functioning bodies, reproduction, survival, evolution, progress, the whole of our lives without any necessity to be a human for 5000 years first. If reality is unreasonable, unlawful, totally chaotic there can't be life! You don't have to be Einstein to realise this! "...Perfectly compatible..."? Absolutely not!
Quote: "P.S. I don't know why you keep saying that you want to remove induction. If this is the case then why are you trying to solve the problem of induction."
If you solve the Problem of Induction, you also remove induction. It's the very induction that is the Problem of Induction.
It has to be this way! When you're in the world, there's a host of necessary conditions that make this possible. ...Our bodies don't explode! Our brains don't turn to stone! So on...!
Edit: Now that you insert "...(inductive)...", please, don't take me to defend induction in this post or elsewhere! I think I've shown that induction is not necessary, we just fail to see the specific reasons when we believe in it!
Rortabend writes: "Your belief in consistency and coherence has to be based on an inductive inference."
The belief in consistency and coherence is derived from a single span of time, instance in its extreme. By deriving this from a single span of time, instance, you effectively avoid the problem of induction. People have traditionally, simply not been analysing what an instance with yourself, your mind, in nature means. I believe that when I derive consistency and coherence from following through on thoughts like Descartes does, is also relatively new. You can make a number of assumptions from this instance as I've shown and these necessities make it off with both Goodman's Paradox and Hume's Problem of Induction. It's not my fault people haven't made these thoughts before me.
Dictionary.com, span: 5. the full extent, stretch, or reach of anything: a long span of [time of] memory. My "single span of time" is nothing mystical. It's just like one episode of experience, like a waking day, 2 hours, a session of thinking, 24 hours, and so on. However, I think span isn't 35 years and so, at least not in how I use it.
Descartes is an old man now, 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650, and he's well placed in the history of development of all. I believe in my own solution to Descartes' solution of relating to the external world. Despite his insertion of God as a necessary guarantee for being in the external world, I still find citations mentioning Descartes' Meditations as he makes a very good case for the bottom line, "I think or doubt, therefore I am". Then I turn to other philosophers or do some thinking on my own.
Standards of Business Practice - Facilitation of Corruption Charges to Prevent Greed on Wall Street and so
Should one erect a supervision entity that can punish greed by pointing at taking unreasonable risk? Paul Krugman lashes out at the academic economists because they are no good according to his claims. It is my opinion that people are reasonable rational in the market, but there may exist business cultures that drive the economists crazy and make them go into greed mode. The economists then begin to seek insane short-term profits. Therefore, while one can assume good market mechanisms most of the time, one should perhaps make room for the abnormal bounds in the market assumptions. Should we cool down this possibility, mode of greed by threatening with strict prison sentences and harsh economic fines, both corporate and personal? From what I read of the financial crisis, the institutions of surveillance have been way passive and lenient. My suggestion of both correction of the theoretical foundation and institutional changes here may initiate better times lasting longer and preventing insane ups and downs. I'm just thinking loudly here. I'd like you to discuss this, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=2, in light of this article.*I'm guilty of being rude to Bernanke, but the seas have been stormy formerly in discussing this.
You come across as some kind of communist, anti-economics. First, the instrument of economy is to value objects, concrete or abstract. If the instrument of economy is very precise then one can put trust in its output. This is always done in the basic cases. I agree that society is building value. It's the activity of people that produces objects of value whether this is the pumping of oil, surveillance of production processes, driving the bus, trading stocks, making watches, performing, making art, educating, researching, inventing, and the lot. Creating value is not exploiting, no, it's doing work, using one's talents (perhaps less visible in the case of the cleaner, but no less, ie. being a nice person etc.) Let me present two cases, Microsoft and Google. Do you say they're not serving the market? Are they disrespectful? Do you feel exploited by them? Let me remind you of comfortable, easy computing for all sorts of issues and the precise searches on the internet also putting marketing at your fingertips and a whole lot more, all in favour of these two. I say virtues of their work make their (financial) success.
"The raison d'etre of markets" is value, valuable objects. The market ensures access for and to these valuable objects, in both the sense of buying and selling. The financial system is supposed to contribute fluidity of economy in the service of value, valuable objects and accountability, responsibility. The notion of "fine-tuning" is about making the system useful and non-disastrous, non-exploitable, ie. Madoff, credit default-swaps.
"The idea of the economy is to make money." Thanks! The value of money is guaranteed by the state by the security of all products and services combined. Money can be made in the sense that the state chooses to "expand" the economy by making a too big state-budget, ie. state spending, and/or through excessive lending to banks, ie. making money too accessible and cheap. The "expansion" of economy usually leads to inflation, ie. money becomes less worthy, this in turn leads to less imports from other currency systems. Money represents an obligation on the state.
S G R writes: "One wishes to buy a house for say £100,000, one acquires a mortgage at say 8% over twenty five years. At the end of twenty five years one has a house that is now worth £150,000 one has made money and everyone is happy but in reality one has paid for the house at least twice probably more and the fifty grand ‘profit’ has nothing to do with how much one has paid."
The loan from the bank to this person enables this person to make an investment in a house. Instead of wasting money renting, this person places a regular amount of money in this person's investment. Usually, this person is far better off in twenty-five years because in the meanwhile inflation, increase in this person's wages has made it cheaper to pay this loan. I see that the inflation also reduces the value of the house, but at this point, this person now has wealth, assets, while in the past this person had nothing!
I believe I've only pointed out the rudimentary and, S G R, your view on economy has been or is twisted to say the least. I hope you find this to be a clarification, although you can probably very well get the same information by reading economy on the internet.
Heard of accounting? That's it! There are mountains of more stuff, but accounting is a nice example.
You seem to skip so comfortably "I say virtues of their work make their (financial) success."
S G R writes: "No, this is not true – you are talking about reality and society here, the imposition of the financial system upon peoples lives is not a necessity in fact I consider it a very bad thing."
You deny the function of the market? That's really strange. You pick up the groceries? That's a very bad thing?
Quote: "Consider what happens if there is a disaster. If you saw a car crash would you run over and offer to hire out your mobile phone at a rate consistent with the supply and demand of the situation? Would you negotiate the highest price you could for any help you offered?"
I believe there's something called blood-money!
Quote: "Accountability and responsibility for what and to whom? Have you ever worked in sales?"
I believe there are regulations in place for the financial system and you do go to jail for fraud and corruption. "Sales"? That's in the sales-department of some business and is included in the general economy of markets.
Quote: "The system is exploitation – I find it hard to understand how you miss this point. Why do you think there are rich people and poor people?"
The system is the financial system as I've written in the instance just before it. I believe you are stupid if you call the financial system exploitation. No one is supposed to be exploited. All you need to do is to fulfill your role as citizen. It's so simple. Make the most of your talents, please! Build a new Google if you feel like it! Rich people are rich because of their virtues or heritage that is the virtue somewhere down the family tree. The poor are poor because of unfortunate circumstances, like exposure to assholes and what have you. I do support a welfare system!
Quote: "And what did the bank do in return?"
What is the bank supposed to do? I believe banks make reasonable profits and that they serve the market, fx. enable people to make investments and so.
Quote: "And of course house prices always go up!"
Yes! After you have bought yours!
I'll answer you without fuzz.
I believe we just disagree on the fundamentals of the financial system. I see the whole of economy and financial system as
made up of honest, working people. I sense that you think there are more crooks than good people. This thread has been erected
to try to meet some of the concerns regarding economy and financial system. Yes, there has been greed and failures and I suggest
a contribution to a better future! The problem with Africa and starving people (also in Asia?) is huge. We have no other option
than to keep helping them (aid, WFP and money, advice, experts on development, support from our education systems to educate people
from there so they get the experts, engineers, medical doctors and so on, fair trade and help and emphasis on striking down on
corrupt, exploiting companies operating there and the rest).
(S G R) You write: "Don’t understand this either." I think that in most cases people are rich because of their virtues, they are good in something and they have capitalised on their talents and virtues. I therefore suggest that in the big picture people are wealthy, incredibly wealthy because it's well earnt. Again, people are not scoundrels, quite the opposite (except a few here and there, fx. Gomorrah and such).
You write: "None of this was deemed fraudulent or corrupt and yet this is the system that you describe as “supposed to contribute… …accountability, responsibility.”" I can't prevent failures such as these and I do think that USA deserves their sorry asses when they fail in charging extra money for extra risk and in addition spread this failure out in a system like that. Again, I point to the intention of this thread, to get rid of such failures in the future.
You write: "What possible evidence have you got to support this claim?" It's in the laws of most legal systems. Have you ever seen a political party promoting "exploitation" in support of a "corrupt, financial elite"? Neither have I! If you find corruption, make the complaint with the "Bobbies"!
You write: "...different system than a free market." Certainly! It's in the power of the majority of the people! Use your vote!
You write: "Enable people to make money out of money?" Enable people to secure their money, to act constructively in the market!
Perhaps consistency and coherency can count for "superknowledge". Also various axioms from other fields, especially mathematics?
Now, if consistency and coherency are true then also continuity, the flow of time? I'd consider "superknowledge" to be obvious propositions that can't be denied, knowledge (objective). (Our criterium may only be this: plausibility, credibility, but that is off topic, maybe.)
Over the article: http://kurier.at/nachrichten/gesundheit/1939094.php. (It appears to be no longer available, but
the article deals with "people suffering from depression have been subjected to psychoanalysis and specific changes in
their brains have been found", provided by Richard Baron.)
It has been my thoughts for a while that when you can virtually see the thought patterns of patients, perhaps this
should guarantee the proper diagnosis of each and everyone of them, the mental health patients. The news you bring
up should entrench this matter. We'll see more use of these scans in the future?
Is it morally repugnant to violently-rape small children? Yes! Yes! Yes! Three times affirmative. Hasn't it been expected?
What do you want? Do you really expect people to come out and defend pedophilia? It's extremely commonplace to reject such atrocity! Actually, I say it's so non-controversial that there's almost no point in asking it. As this is a place for thought and reflection, I hardly believe this thread can be perceived as serious. I also think it's wrong of you to consider homosexuality versus pedophilia.
People are just commonly not that ugly as you may perceive them. (Or maybe the times are changing rapidly and to the far worse. The again, it seems to me that hope always shines thorugh even if one self is not always part of it.)
Realunoriginal writes: "Why is it morally-repugnant to violently-rape small children?"
Some people deny the existence of ethics and thereby its morals whatsoever, but I can say this. It certainly hurts a given society and the coherence of the people in it if one allows unfounded, monstrous acts. I find it also morally repugnant because I believe in ethics and morals myself, personally. You know the law may be seen as an expression of a collective moral the punishment is quite strict for "violently-rape small children". This punishment may thus be seen as a (scale of) degree of monstrosity (to which one is punished) and this particular punishment goes quite high on that scale.
One of those points that hasn't made it has been a criticism of you putting homosexuals grouped with child-molesters.
The thing is, homosexuals can enable their normal family and community members carry more children so in this sense they
contribute positively even in the evolutionary sense. Child-molesters on the other hand, they destroy people, at least,
mentally, perhaps also physically. I think you have looked past this!
By this, I haven't by far answered all of your objections.
I have voted "Fully awake" because I don't think I'll get better than this. Having that said, I can never get enough enlightenment! I live to learn!
First, I must say that I find causation useful. When I hear that there is a cause of something, I also have the notion that there is something that has been effectuated. I know that Cause and Effect belong together. In your system, how am I supposed to determine what is up and what is down of that necessity? I understand you say that brain processes necessitate consciousness downward. What does that mean? Why isn't it upward necessary? Is there a "soul" in there?
To me, Causation gives explanatory force. When they say that HIV is caused by the HIV-virus and not by a bacteria, I like to avoid that virus and that blood. I wonder, doesn't correlation and interaction give your concerns a little room? Is time vital in determining downward versus upward? I get it when you say that the universe is coherent, but I sense it is in picking out features and objects that we get scientific. The universe is just as coherent as before. We split up the chains of processes.
If you invent a new chemical compound, is it downward necessary?
By myself: "The universe is the effect of its cause, the Big Bang."
I say then, night and day is caused by the sun and the revolution of the earth. I assume here we're talking about nights and days on earth.
kake writes: "If I take a Grey rock and I paint it red, what color is it really? If colors exist, is the paint just red? Or maybe the color Grey is gone until the paint is no longer part of the rock?"
I hope, though, that you are honest. My answer to you is that the rock is red on the surface and grey inside! How is this? Well, if you just crack the rock, you'll see of course that the former surface sides of the rock are still red and the surfaces that have been together are grey. One should also keep in mind that most colours are made up of molecules. Uniform atoms piled together also has colour in varying degrees, just have a look at the properties of the elements in the chart over the various atoms. I believe they range in atom-number 1 through 110. I bet you know them. Some people say the sky is blue, but the fact is that when light enters the atmosphere the light is bended just like when light goes from air into glass. The result of this is that the atmosphere is usually coloured blue. There are more colours in the sky also as you see when the sun dawns or sets in the horizons. Satyr has mentioned that colours are in the head, but I find it has been proven at least that the structure of the substances affects the light no matter what. I'd like to encourage you to check out the physics of colours while you're at it.
S G R writes: "How can you ‘know’ that 1+1=2? Could it be in the same way that you ‘know’ Euclidean geometry? Because Euclidean geometry is also based upon a system of logic and yet since Einstein it is recognised that it does not correspond to reality. So what you seem to be saying is that one can ‘know’ something that is not true."
I think this is wrong. Euclidean geometry is recognised to represent reality, but when it comes to relativity, it is insufficient. The Riemann geometry that underpins the work of Einstein is an addition to the Euclid geometry. One may seem to presuppose a too fluid view of reality in that one can't assume logic to be true. I strongly disagree with that view. Logic is reflected in reality everywhere, otherwise the logic would be different. I think Satyr here is making the quite plain case that many have done before, perhaps first the logical empiricists. Apart from the verification, it's fairly sound, I find. As far as "knowledge" exists and as far as "reality" exists, I also think that knowledge builds upon reality, but at times with a certain distance to it.
I, myself, is a Coherentist. It's not very original. From my position then, I see reality as something external to the consciousness. I have although begun to hold dear the concept of Life-World to set the difference between perception and reality as firmly as possible.
I'm very optimistic about the future of the developed democracies. The only sad thing is that the rest of the world is lagging behind, but China is coming around big time and India with it. If they sort out things in the Middle East and Africa, it should look really good! I think there are many possibilities for entrepreneurship, but I recommend people to pick up a big degree of education. I believe the founders of Google set a stunning example in this regard. I'll almost say that entrepreneurship is identical with education.
With Obama, I feel intelligence again occupies the Whitehouse! Bless you, US citizens! It may turn out bad, but I say it already, please give this man his second term!
I'm a little afraid the gun-horny Republicans who eagerly fire from the hip.
Some time ago, from a renowned university or something, people are given a question of whether to have a certain amount of money relatively or a certain amount of money absolutely. The result of choices are that people choose money on the relative basis even if it's an unwise choice. Essentially, people choose to maintain rank among some people (and possibly becoming incredibly aggressive externally) rather than choosing what is best for people in the holistic sense, for the community. I'd say there is something wrong with it. To say that price is unaffected by salaries is plain wrong if it applies to everyone in a given system, say a particular country. After the labour unions and the employer unions have set the new salaries standard for the next year, it doesn't take long before there is a reaction in the market. I think it may be right to choose to earn twice as much as absolutely everyone else. Surely, something must happen inflation wise in such cases. I think it's very rational to seek a labour union if you're engaged with blue collar work. Even white collar labour unions have some guide lines in the interest of their members. The way with unions on both sides of the working situations has proven quite stable and good, I think, with increased safety and better working environment where it applies. I hope this system gets applied everywhere.
Speaking of the economic crisis, there is something insane going on when people fail to get paid for risks when their only goal is exactly this task, as with the risk of sub-prime mortgages. It doesn't get any better when the successor of Alan Greenspan who has been known for allowing interest rates to be set quite low, is Ben Bernanke who figures he's going to be the nice schoolboy and all of a sudden shifts focus to protecting the value of the dollar with a subsequently steep rise in interest rates so that the market which has bet on steady, low rates go BUST! Well done, Bernanke! Now you can really defend the dollar.
However, mostly I find the economic systems very good and contributing to the development of the whole world. Eventually, the planet's population is more or less earning the same (in two hundred years?) and the differences will lie in resources, cultural streaks and creativity of entrepreneurs. The future is good if it is managed properly by alert democracies.
A couple of my posts:
Source: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/foundations-of-philosophy-33822.html
I writes,
here are my foundational beliefs:
1. I agree with "Induction does not lead to certain (ie infallible) truth".
2. I agree with " Propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief".
3. Experience is the source of all we know.
4. I agree with "The rules of logic, and the truths of mathematics, are the same in all possible worlds".
5. I agree with " The world is rational, coherent and consistent".
6. I agree with "Solipsism is false (ie there is a real world out there)".
7. I believe in extra-natural facts. Facts that have yet to be explained by science.
8. Physicalism has not been proved. It may not be a fact that everything supervenes on the physical, per Standard Model in 2009.
9. In some sense, I'm a dualist, but if we sometime in the future expand the Standard Model of Physics to accommodate every phenomenon in the world, I'm a reductionist.
10. There is objective morality. What you do to the common pool of humanity is what you bear with you to the moment of death. This includes attitudes to humanity, as well.
11. Morality is founded on the good will as explained by I. Kant.
12. Purpose is what you take it to be based on your total impression of the world.
Note: These foundational beliefs of "mine" are not superior to my "Philosophical Positions" from the "Issues...", in fact the reverse is true.
Source: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/foundations-of-philosophy-33822.html
I write: "I write something simple because I'm very unsure about the induction issue. I think there may be a way around it.
It is a hugely complex issue, the issue of knowledge and epistemology in general. I don't want to answer it right now.
Yes. I believe that everything can in principle be explained by science and logic.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used "proved". Apart from that, I think the point is made.
You're right, but it's not my point. I want to write that the work of the mind is a kind of experience. We build up a more
powerful mind as the years pass and it is this that I write is the experience to point to. Euclid's axioms haven't come
about overnight. Nowadays, people are quite old and well-educated before they publish something novel worth the attention.
It takes experience. I have also omitted the induction issue, see above.
It is taken, see above.
Alright.
We disagree here. I think one is wrong to point to Kant's Christian background.
To my knowledge, Searle's Chinese Room exposes the difference with a syntactic programming and a semantic programming, if such a thing can exist. Only people as we know are capable of semantic reasoning.
It is funny, though, that if you turn Searle's argument on its head, it can be a nice qualia argument in so far as the person in the room learning Chinese in this occasion, can show the genuine character of a human distinctly apart from a computer.
You can't split a cake infinitely many times because it has a finite number of atoms in it, but I take your point when it comes to the abstract numbers.
Yet, I find that we put the infinite to the issues that are relevantly infinite to us. If the universe is expanding forever, it is infinite to us. If we number reality the number 1 because we seemingly live in one reality, I think it gives little meaning to the factors we truly, no matter what, view as infinite as the nature of universe or whatever else we think about.
When it comes to the idea of tabula rasa, I guess it relates more to the question of apriori knowledge. The tabula rasa idea defeats the idea that we are born with some innate knowledge of God, typically.
Hilary Putnam has also written some on the impossibility of a God's eye view and internal worlds. I'm trying to figure out if my angle to the problem of justifying the external world, internal worlds or worlds altogether is an original one.
I have been reading a post on the metaphysics and the idea comes to me like a lightning from a clear blue sky. Initially, I'm not very keen on the metaphysics. In some sense, it's like religion. You can discuss it until you're blue in the face. So there I am, with these few 4 sentences and wondering if it is anything at all. I'm still interested in the internal, external worlds stuff.
There is a part of the Vatican that is involved with science. It is http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/index.htm. I understand that Galileo hasn't been tortured for heretics as such but for disturbing common people of our place in the universe. Maybe my recollection isn't serving me right, but I state it nevertheless.
There is an important difference between believers and delusional, crazy and psychotic people. The latter people are usually a hazard both to themselves and others. Believers, on the other hand, have built this great civilization, by and large, that we now live in. I agree some can use a corrective in their belief-system, but I believe they are not so many. I, for one, as a believer (analytical deist) believe in extra-scientific truths that is, I make several leaps of faith. It should be fairly obvious that not a single being on earth knows what nature fully is or consists of. To make the assumption that you should tell people what to believe beyond science is stupidity. Post subject: Religion and Mental Delusion PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:32 pm The_Fool writes: "What's the difference between a person who calls themselves the righteous chosen of god under heaven for which they have no evidence for and someone who believes they are Napoleon Bonaparte in the present who believes they are living in 18th century?" "[R]ighteous chosen of god under heaven" can very well represent a tautology and as such doesn't necessarily mean a thing. Now, this "someone" is clearly out of one's mind, a crazy person, who denies every fact face up! I think the 2 examples are not comparable as they may have way different consequences. I also think that the person last mentioned is likely to live the most difficult life. Clearly, when most of the planet's population have some religious faith, the persecution carried out is also the making of those very people. When you mention persecution, I can mention Joseph Stalin of Soviet Union, a far more recent example of that. When I mention building the civilization, I mean that religious people have been very good in making a constructive future and growing the world population, a characteristic of general sanity. Who doesn't say that Vespasian hasn't believed in the Roman gods? Quote: "Deism like so many new pseudo religions unlike traditional ones still believe in intelligent design without evidence." I believe there are several ID-theories. It is correct, of course, that we believe there is some kind of God(-phenomena, -function, -entity) behind it all. "God" may be a whole lot, obscure at that. You, yourself, hold a very recent position, Atheism, I guess, that if we go back a hundred years ago, that kind of position is largely non-existent. Quote: "Perhaps, but is it any more stupid than pronouncing that there is a intelligent design to the cosmos or a god existing out there?( Out, where?)" I say "yes, it is", because I believe one is bound to make extra-scientific assumptions. I bet you also hold views that are not entirely scientific about the birth of, say, the universe and phenomena of life. By the way, "out there" may be meant in various ways. I find that believers have faith in an omnipresent God, not "out there" as such.
Paedophilia IS a mental disease, a compulsion toward children, is it not?
and
A thought not acted upon is not in the sphere of reality.
I have inserted the abbreviation, HDM, in a past post. Here is the explanation as given by Encyclopædia Britannica, http://search.eb.com/.
Quote:
"Hypothetico-Deductive Method - Procedure for the construction of a scientific theory that will account for results obtained through direct
observation and experimentation and that will, through inference, predict further effects that can then be verified or disproved by empirical
evidence derived from other experiments.
Developed by Sir Isaac Newton during the late 17th century (but named at a later date by philosophers of science), the hypothetico-deductive
method assumes that properly formed theories arise as generalizations from observable data that they are intended to explain. These hypotheses,
however, cannot be conclusively established until the consequences that logically follow from them are verified through additional observations
and experiments. In conformity with René Descartes' rationalism, the hypothetico-deductive method treats theory as a deductive system in which
particular empirical phenomena are explained by relating them back to general principles and definitions. The method, however, abandons the
Cartesian claim that those principles and definitions are self-evident and valid; it assumes that their validity is determined only by the exact
light their consequences throw on previously unexplained phenomena or on actual scientific problems."
Here is also a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico_deductive_model.
It has never been shown what these extreme circumstances may be so it is a pure speculation or let's say sci-fi of the 50's to say that they are. It's not comparable to refer to the Riemannian modification of Euclidian geometry or non-Euclidian geometry as it's called. Two Dogmas of Empiricism is actually published in 1951 with a revised edition in 1961. The article is here: http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html.
Richard Baron:
"Another view is given by Otto Neurath in his Antispengler, with his image of sailors repairing a ship at sea."
The picture by Neurath is used as a metaphor for the ongoing enterprise of science. We are obviously in the world, but we need to rebuild our understanding of the world. Otto Neurath has been an early member of the Vienna Circle also known as the logical positivists.
You may read more about it in Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century - Four Central Themes by Donald Gillies, ISBN 0-631-18358-2.
Psychonaut writes: "What is required for consciousness?"
I say it is the capacity to create ideas, preferably new ones.
I think Bicameralism is a kind of emergentism just worded in scientific way. There may be some faults within the Bic. One matter I think is not so good, is the shift from non-conscious to conscious and this is an anomaly within that specific idea. Rather, I find that if some entity is conscious it has been conscious on some level the whole time, ever creating new ways out of one's situation.
Humans build sciences and corresponding technology. To our knowledge, animals just live in the nature and evolve.
At Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:04 am mark black writes: "It's not the same kind of faith."
I say it is the exactly same faith. You should separate dogmatism and belief in religion. If the assertion of God or anything like it can be a scientific assertion, it is!
At Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:22 pm mark black writes: "Religion cannot claim to have the same epistemic standards as scientific knowledge - and thus it's wrong to equate the two."
Why not? The only difference I see, is the fact that science is declared and religious beliefs are undeclared.
I think there are numerous phenomena like the miracle of life that points to an equally miraculous ultimate solution to it all. When you are on the fringes of science in making avantgarde conjectures and experiments what are you supposed to believe? It can make a revolution and it surely holds no particular rule of what it is! There are the usual guidelines of scientific soundness, but consequences of discoveries of new principles of nature are sure big and yields great impact when they occur.
There are 3 possibilities of conceded defeat to extinguished life the way atheists see it:
* The living turns to the dead material of rocks and mountains.
* The living fail to habitate other galaxies and is extinguished when the sun explodes in some hundreds of thousands of years.
* The living dies out when the universe gets cold from the expansion of it where energy is spread so thin that there are no new formations
of stars and planets and so on.
I, as an eternal optimist, think we will transcend all of this. I’m a believer!
bus2bondi writes:
"[E]ventually a species that solves all of its problems will succumb to an eternal tedium: if death, illness, poverty, need and pain are
eventually abolished, won't existence merely progress until everyone just sits around pressing the button to stimulate the electrodes in
their brains (because they've heard all the stories, and it's still more fun than anything else)?"
I think we need to presuppose that the future is SMART if that kind of progress is achieved. To sit around and stimulate the electrodes in their brains is certainly not smart. The human kind would decay! Besides, I feel there is a limitation to what I quote. Why don't we then go on to create new worlds and even universes or entire new dimensions? Possibly, it may be turning into God once again and there we go again!
I think the 'rapture of the 'nerds'' is the way to go! Perhaps, not so much rapture, but certainly nerds. There is the issue of knowledge that I find the most important of all. I do not say you should ignore your physical side, mind you.
I am of the sense that intelligence exists where life exists, perhaps also in a religious sense, but that is a different matter.
I am wondering at times what information it is that ripples through the DNA and cells in general in the tiny entities and others by the bio-electrical machinery. I wonder at all how the smallest beings processes and how the signals of those processes determines these cell-sized beings.
When I say that intelligence exists where life exists, I just mean the functional intelligence, that you mention, but also that hint of quality that makes the tiny entities alive and that which differentiates them from one another in addition, of course, to the possibility to develop, to evolve.
mark black writes: "What's the scientology position on evolution?"
Scientology is quite close to science and I believe that within the movement, evolution is well accepted, although I suspect Mr. Hubbard has gauged his audience of deeply religious US citizens and kept it somewhat silent. There is no problem with accepting that we are on the top of the food chain and that we are leading the living world into immortality and infinity. Well, you can perhaps leave the last sentence out.
Generally, I try to keep a strict division between Philosophy of Science and Religion. I think there is great value in keeping tight the various disciplines of Philosophy and as we are now in the very thread of Philosophy of Science, I don't want to comment on the Religion of any kind.
I suggest that you can make wise choice of going outside Christianity by either Deism that isn't really organised or Scientology.
A strength of them is ethics like the Ten Commandments, modified or not, or the declaration of human rights.
Christianity, if you want it, is to me filled with paradoxes. Some of these paradoxes are the singular events of miracles like parting a river or the biggest one of them all, to kill a God incarnate, Jesus, for the sake of our sins, not mine, mind you. Also, by Christianity you will face problems of documentation. I mean Jesus may turn out to be a combination of a hundred people doing miracles recorded by squinting witnesses or by people of poor memory or countless other flaws.
Gustaf wrote:
"You are calling teachings of your Church - teaching that some people pay $50,000 or more to get - nonsense!?"
Some of the teachings of my CoS might be nonsense, just in case the Xenu-matter and other such drivel. People pay for the most crazy ideas and crack cocaine. To simply pay for something doesn't make it right.
Gustaf wrote:
"In any case, the Church of Scientology claims that its teachings have strong scientific backing. Do you dispute that?"
Maybe CoS has strong scientific backing to the extent they can have that. I find it hard to believe that any religion can have strong scientific backing. It seems contradictory.
Gustaf wrote:
"If not, what is the strong scientific backing for the Xenu story?"
The Xenu story has no strong scientific backing in my opinion.
Gustaf wrote:
"Is there any reason to believe that being a Clear allows you to do anything beyond impressing lesser Scientologists? CoS makies considerable
claims about abilities of Clears - what are your views of those claims?"
Having the right belief makes you better able and insofar Clears have that right belief, they are better able.
Maybe these can help:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99_1.htm
Alright, I'm interested, but it turns out I haven't found the point either.
I philosophise to challenge my mind, puzzling and to try to come up with better answers and questions.
Hallelujah, philosophy is my religion!
I would like to cite Science, Truth, and Democracy by Philip Kitcher:
Quote:
"...famous verse from the New Testament: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.""
There is another one, too:
Quote:
"...scientific inquiry (red.: Truth) would enable people to live lives of superior quality."
Military science (truth) has been in the service of rulers at least since the Middle Ages.
As for lying, I would let the Jew-hunting Nazi pass to the next door if I don't assault the person and do the person off.
I just want to introduce Richard Swinburne to the Forum. He seems to me to be a true master in Philosophy of Religion. I have a few links to begin with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne
http://philosophytalk.org/pastShows/ConceptofGod.htm
I also hope we can discuss his works in this thread. Initially, I am not too interested in Philosophy of Religion (PoR), but I'm impressed with this guy.
the more you know, the greater your action ratio
the more you have, also the greater your action ratio
Conclusion - More IS more
We are Human Beings, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and we should explore the universe in every sense.
Leibniz and Conway suggest mind is made up of a different kind of stuff: Monades. I think it is an interesting perspective. Please mind that the physical picture of nature described by physics is NOT complete. I think that is important to be aware of.
By the way, electrons are a kind of quark as are of course ups and downs quarks too. The quarks are collected in a system named the Standard Model. There are way more quarks than up, down, electrons and photons. You have the top, bottom, charm, strange and so on... Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model.
I guess some of the position of the question is given by religion whether it is the atheist (a kind of religion, bla, bla) or Christianity or something else. The atheist account is like the evolutionary explanation, we have evolved from micro-organisms to four-limbed, biped, erect beings and with the possibilities thereof comes writings in the sand, making of fire, activity of science, craftmanship, artistry and the rest. One question and it sounds like the hen and the egg: does the biological possibilities make us rational and if not, is the whale rational?
Jetsetjason wrote:
"...why should humans last forever?"
Because we are so smart!
I just want to point out that there is no war between nations of today and I also bet that it is not the case of ancient times where times of war is rife. Times of today are more civic and trade and urbanization will put wars, even civil ones, into non-existence.
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy by General Editor, Robert Audi. ISBN 052148328X
It even has a quote of Richard Rorty in it.
Richard Rorty wrote:
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is very comprehensive, thoroughly up-to-date, and probably the best short reference book in English on
philosophy.
The dictionary is only one volume. Now, the dictionary contains both the concepts of naturalism and positivism. I also hold that the two concepts
refer mainly to Philosophy of Science.
Naturalism: “the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities – those studied in the sciences (on some versions, the natural sciences) – whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included, abstracta (abstract entities) like possibilia (possibilities) and mathematical objects, if they exist, being constructed of such abstracta as the sciences allow; and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are commensurable, in some sense, with those in science."
Positivism (logical positivism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
The Philosophy of Science, Couvalis wrote:
... developed an empiricist account that used the new formal techniques to produce a daring new view of the nature of science, logic and language.
They hoped to eliminate metaphysics from the domain of significant discourse by proposing an account of the nature of meaning according to which
terms derive much of their meaning directly from experience.
The book is: The Philosophy of Science - Science and Objectivity by George Couvalis ISBN 0761951016.
I am to some extent in sympathy with Socrates when he points out traps in our views of reality. I also think he displays a degree of flamboyancy in his rhetoric. If he is such a genius of his time, why isn't he contributing more to the science of his time like Aristotles.
I must say I support the wise men of science in his time and the artisans and craftsmen, the ancient engineers if you will.
If you follow Socrates through I think you end up with indecision and action of futility.
In my own view, I hold that empiri is the crux of activity while withholding a priori considerations and an awareness of the limits of the mind so that I do not jump to conclusions.
Are probabilistic theories expressions of underdetermination?
Somehow I think they are. Reality should be fixed like reflections of gravity and other phenomena we never doubt.
Probabilistic theories are like temporary work that may one day change if we can identify underlying laws seemingly resulting in probabilistic theories.
I take the example of gravity as as a law of nature and I expect ALL other relationships to be likewise laws of nature in the same infallible manner. I think to the very minute level these relationships are determinate as described (as laws of nature).
As a 'reflection of gravity' meaning an example of a law of nature, perhaps I can mention Snell's law describing the travel of light from one
substance into another and thereof the implications.
As a law of nature I also mention thermodynamics. There should be many more to mention. I'm also aware of the many probabilistic theories within
physics but I'm unable to mention any.
How can you decide what position to hold in Philosophy of Mind if you do not have the complete physical picture of nature?
I mean if you do not know what to reduce to or the opposite, what is the foundation of decision?
This puzzles me as I struggle to find a solid position for my views. As I see it, one can be swayed either way depending on what physics really can describe or hold.
I have given it a shot. Here it is:
1. Let's say you have a 100% hunch to what you are looking for.
- The belief in p as well as the perceiver
2. Let's say you have a 100% data-material to what you are looking for.
- p
3. Let's say you have a 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit".
- The situation of acquisition of knowledge, the relation of the perceiver of p to p.
(4.) Sum: You have knowledge.
It is shaking a little so I combine with the classic tripartite definition of knowledge to make it stronger and to possibly break Gettier. At least it gives a new look. What I find to strengthen the solution are the facts that the relations are given in percentage which give the lines flexibility and the word integrity which is meant to close down the situation side of acquiring knowledge.
I do not intend to propose the use of prediction in relation to what you quote of me. I find the Bayesian project quite futile and awkward. I do not believe in predicting events of invention or knowledge for that sake.
The intention behind it is that I believe there is a difference between researcher A and B. Researcher A is being more clever with his epistemology and more successful with his specific research project q, that is in acquiring knowledge. While researcher B is not so careful although having equal access to aids and tools and research material.
I present the lines of epistemology as a mere cautious suggestion of pinning down factors as a statement of affairs. I write again, it is not meant for prediction of anything at all. There is a consideration, though, that one can work out research cases one by one to state some sort of success factors. In this way there should exist generalities of what makes something successful and what fails. There may be a possibility in epistemology for sorting this out in parallel.
Oldal writes: "Reminiscent of Hume; the more improbable an event the stronger the evidence must be to elicit confidence in the explanation."
Hmm… If you compare the well cited transition from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, is this the case? It takes a well educated person to separate the two. Isn’t this so? Both theories describe gravitation but one is more correct than the other. It’s just a suggestion.
Just the few thoughts:
God creates the world, all of it.
Big Bang creates the world, all of it.
God creates the Big Bang that creates the world.
A singular point of immense density creates the Big Bang that creates the world.
God creates the singular point.
Energy and mass is constant and whatever happens, happens.
I think the Intelligent Design and the Big Bang are not necessarily so far apart.
Besides, life is a crucial matter here. It is a pivotal point that life can't be made in the lab. As we see life and the living as something that must make the difference and we infer God and Intelligent Design. When we start making the living from dead material in the laboratory you will sway me more to the atheistic side.
I have now finished the addition of the Philosophy Now forum posts! I'll continue writing there indefinitely for all that I know. I proceed with the Philosophy Forums posts. They are forthcoming, I think.
Here are some of them. Please remember that the url to Philosophy Forums is www.philosophyforums.com:
By me, from http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#OGTI.
It's my opinion that Gödel's Theorems on this matter make either unreasonable assumptions on axioms or try to say too much,
particularly on a system's axioms which may themselves, ultimately be hinged on a nature of infinity. It seems strange to me
that Gödel's "Incompleteness" is about not being able to prove the axioms from within the given system. In my opinion, every
"idiot" goes only for consistent and Gödel "incomplete" systems. This should be clear! I see no problem with the descriptive
power of this system as a consequence of Gödel "incompleteness".
If Gödel's two theorems are to kick in, the human viewpoint would have to be completely different and the ontological status
of infinity soundly removed, but this is clearly not the case today.
The theorems of Incompleteness should thus be renamed Theorems of Non-Self-Reference or Theorems of Non-Tautology.
Drawing from the Philosophy of Science, I see the creation of systems like (non-Euclidean geometry and) Fuzzy Logic, being only (two) one example(s), as sliding in nicely with existing systems and this should also be kept in mind when you regard the whole story of various systems through the course of human evolution.
(Wild) questions:
Are the Gödel theorems of incompleteness contradictions? Are they begging for the impossible, implicitly?
Are the theorems controversial?
What kind of system is it the theorems ask for?
I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive
tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?
For educational purposes: How do you build something without having a world to build something in first? Why question the building materials you've selected when you're making a building? How do you prove your "Universe of Discourse"? I sense there's something "sick" about imposing a requirement of being able to prove the establishment of the world that's going to support your descriptions. What I'm saying is that Gödel's "incompleteness" is negligible as opposed to other possible meanings of "incompleteness".
Originally written 07.02.2010 and 11.02.2010.
I see a small victory by naming the Proofs by the Theorems of incompleteness for Gödel "incompleteness" because I don't think "normal" people really think of Gödel "incompleteness" as incompleteness at all! What do you think?
I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?
Hasn't it always been a "game of axioms"? Axioms don't come by themselves. They do represent hard work. So you say that the identification of the various axioms to a system makes this a different system than it's supposed to establish in the first place? You probably would like to introduce some kind of language-gaming element to every system there is then, yes?
A small comment: you may want to replace verifiability with confirmation to run along with falsifiability as they are pretty much the sides of the same coin. There are important reasons of why verifiability has failed, such as needing to definitely know the truth before you verify it. At least, I think it's somewhat old-fashioned to stick to the verifiability criterion when it's much better supported by the confirmation criterion, best espoused by Carl Hempel (probably by many others as well).
Introductory note: consider this writing the second part of OP, 2/2, and the above as 1/2, please.
Considerations for 1939 - 1946.
[Edit2:] Countering the question of involvement of Ford and its factories in Germany, the most important question in my opinion
is how much goods has been imported into Germany, esp. from USA, let's say for the period of 1933 to 1941?
To what extent can one say that any imports from USA have contributed to the Nazi-German war machine?
And lastly, what about the sponsoring, the acquisition of funds, money or resources whatever to Nazi-Germany? Did they acquire
money from abroad? To what extent? [End of edit.]
Considerations for 1939 - 1941.
[Edit, 25.02.2011:] New (I want to test some "signals" here): Can it also be that USA and Japan had an agreement over Pearl
Harbour on the number of vessels that were allowed to dock with the harbour there and that if this (bilateral) clause was to
be breached Japan would attack harshly? Thus, did USA also impel/provoke this attack and launch into war with Japan? [End of
edit.]
Considerations for 1945 - 1946.
[Edit, 08.03.2011:] Did also USA nuke Tokyo into total destruction for avoiding the aftermath of the WW2 against the Japanese
(that is, destroying the convention of settling the post-war matters with the Japanese in a "justified" way)? That is, if you
have the "war"-documents stored in the Capital (by convention) and the enemy destroys the Capital so that the documents then
it becomes impossible to settle a judgment of the war. This may be a motive by the USA to hide the initial crime of themselves
to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour by harbouring too many ships/sea vessels there of the military kind. [End of
edit.]
Considerations for 1930 - 1946.
[Edit2, 08.03.2011:] It must, though, be pointed out that the Japanese have been hard on their own neighbours for some time up
to the point to the conflict with USA in WW2 and it can very well be that the Japanese have gotten what they deserved in the
end after all. It has been an aggressive power through the whole of the 30s and has engaged in a number of conflicts up to 1945
and its unconditional surrender. I think this note undermines any fact that USA in any way willingly wanted a war with Japan,
but rather, as it is uncontroversionally written, that USA has been assaulted in 1941 in Pearl Harbour. Just to clear some air.
[End of edit.]
See above for considerations.
My assertion for the Ford V12 engines stems from a documentary I've seen.
See above for considerations.
"Burning Mexico" simply means the civil unrest there in relation to rife crime, possibly put to a higher level by insisted U.S.
American exports of relatively advanced gunnery, i.e., large caliber weapons and what have you. The military walks the streets
there which is a state of emergency, honestly speaking.
See above for considerations.
United Bananas you can check out yourselves. CBS 60 Minutes had it covered a while ago to some extent.
Considerations for August 12, 2000.
Further: SS KURSK
First it appeared that Kursk had sunk as a matter of malfunction by one of its torpedos (fuel failure, complex stuff) and this
was allegedly confirmed by footage made by Norwegian underwater services (closest and ready with equipment).
Rather later, it appears that SS Kursk may have been sunk by an MK48 torpedo of the kind that USS Miami may have been equipped
with as its location was rumoured to be close to the "accident" of SS Kursk. This was indeed the finding of the very excellent
French journalism and that the entry hole in the front of Kursk is identical to a typical hole made by an MK48 torpedo!
The suggestion by this very topic makes it indeed likely that SS Kursk was sunk rather than suffered from a mishap simply
because this topic envisions such behaviour from the U.S. Americans likely! Now, don't blame this "psychiatrist"/"psychologist"
because that's obviously more joke than true, but still... Hmm... I'm still wearing my Sherlock Holmes outfit and it seems
that the world makes this necessary in many aspects! Booo! Beware!
SS = Submersible Ship.
Considerations for 1985 - 2004(?).
[Edit, 15.04.2011:] Further on USA foreign policy. Relating to the State Department, USA is less than neutral in matter of aid
and development to the developing world! Indeed, the UN has for a number of years recommended that this amount of money-value
should be about 1 - 3% of GDP. The U.S. Americans can smile all they want, but I want it clear who they are and what their
numbers are!
Thus, aid contribution from USA to the developing world speaks for itself: it stands at 0.001 % of GDP or so and has been this way for many, many years!!! So who are they to claim world leadership??? Because they are NOT world leaders!!!
Correction: It appears they do comply with new standards of contribution to the UN and also paying the highest amount of money. The source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding! However, in the past, USA has been critisised for this for exactly this rule of 1 - 3 % GDP. [End of edit.]
[Edit, 10.05.2011:]
Considerations for 2001 - 2002(?).
I can note that it's evident that USA has little or no qualms over deceiving the whole world and the most prominent case for
this is, of course, the case for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq (that didn't exist), presented to the UN Security
Council and leading to the invasion of Iraq, with its many hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties!
I can also be noted that the direct negotiations between Iraq, by Saddam Hussein, and USA, right before the war, are kept
secret (in the hidden, emphasis), for no apparent reason!
[End of edit.]
[Edit, 26.04.2011:]
Considerations for 1976 - 1979.
I'm going to add a point to the OP on East Timor and Noam Chomsky, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky%27s_political_views#East_Timor_activism:
"Chomsky argued that decisive military, financial and diplomatic support was provided to Suharto’s regime by successive
U.S. administrations; beginning with Gerald Ford who, with Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State, provided a 'green light'
to the brutal invasion. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. had supplied the Indonesian army with 90% of its arms, and "by
1977 Indonesia found itself short of weapons, an indication of the scale of its attack. The Carter Administration
accelerated the arms flow. Britain joined in as atrocities peaked in 1978, while France announced that it would sell
arms to Indonesia and protect it from any public "embarrassment". Others, too, sought to gain what profit they could
from the slaughter and torture of Timorese.”[48] This humanitarian catastrophe went virtually unnoticed by the
international community.[49]"
General considerations.
Not that I see it immensely critical, but I think it's useful that USA and U.S. American culture, especially in terms
of business life and attitudes toward the the world outside USA, get its fair share of criticism and to large extent
the duties (if not outright subversiveness on grounds of superior culture/genes) USA has failed in this regard. This
is simply the overall point. That the world is brought level and that world power is now a lot of places and even
shifting places, more rarely.
It must be the goal of any politics of the kind that belongs with the UN that people are indeed considered equal and
subjects under The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. This implies a lot of stuff!!! It has implications on
how we share knowledge, how we behave in terms of business relations, internationally, and that world justice has a
chance of rightful scrutiny and intra-country/state of justice can be mediated into its proper place. I also add,
although earlier cited, that UN has the umbrella of ILO, the International Labour Organisation under its wings! This
organisation can prove very important if not critical in the future!
[End of edit.]
Generally, considering the possibility for system and engineering I find it somewhat strange that society has this slow
pace. If the good will would carry maximum weight and work effort, the world should have been looking different by now.
Also adding to the picture, the reported 42600 unsolved cases of ”disappeared” people in 82 countries by Amnesty
International one may meditate over how many "monsters" there are out there in the world.
Even thinking about the "calm, sedate" Norway, at least I am thinking over the levels of corruption that lead people to
run "meat shops", "torture clinics (some of which are "portable" and readily set up)" or "glass works", all of which
harbour, potentially (cynically: yes, they are for real), all the sh*ttyness you can muster to swallow!
Even the small issues like adoption and childcare cases by the Childcare units/institution have their Kings and Queens
of sh*t! You know, outright corruption!
So, what the heck to make of this grim picture?
[Edit:]
A major concern is also to what extent U.S. American expertise is sponsoring European sh*ttyness and how they, cynically,
undermine our good efforts, relating the "rules" to a certain kind of personality type they approve of in Europe just to
spin this sh*t further. So, the "monsters" are sent abroad or let to chew on the lower social levels (esp. the homeless)
and the good are confined/naively or by information held domestically, perhaps scared of the dangerous places abroad or
subversely made so by their fellow U.S. American "wolves"/"monsters" when/if they go abroad.
[End of edit.]
Your turn. Cheers!
A small note on presentation of Wall Street by CNN and others: you get Alison Kosik to present numbers and reports and
she has the education of a Bachelor of Arts by Political Science and Broadcasting Journalism! Why is this? Why should
this political scientist be presenting numbers and reports from Wall Street unless they present this pretty face to you,
facetiously, and yet have this powerful/brutal knock-down from behind, i.e., Political Science ([in the corrupt sense] to the World)! Not that
I blame this person, but it's this bloody presentation and having the knowledge of this qualification!
The link to the presentation of her by CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/kosik.alison.html.
It says,
CNN writes:
"Kosik received her Bachelor of Arts degrees in Broadcast Journalism and Political Science from The American University
in Washington, DC."
[Edit, 14.02.2011:] This thread is also an example of an interception for you wanna-be fighter pilots out there! :D :twisted:
[End of edit.]
[Edit, 11.04.2011:] Added the notion of the sinking of K-141 Kursk. It's not even part of the Wikipedia webpage on
Kursk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_K-141_Kursk [End of edit.]
[Edit, 26.04.2011:] I've added the notion of SS Kursk and its meaning, Submersible Ship. [End of edit.]
[Edit, 10.05.2011:] I've added notions on the invasion of Iraq today along with some time-scopes. [End of edit.]
I don't think this carries much weight since the explanation still has to be as complete as possible. You still need to explain empirical meanings/consequences for example. To describe by minimum requirements doesn't mean that you leave something out of the picture or that you can leave something out of the picture, justifyingly.
I think the realists are well supported by this, being a scientific realist, myself.
I've heard about QM experiments if you haven't. To suppose QM only lives in mathematics is to say that QM is merely mathematical beauty and speculation and this is simply not true!
Wikip.:
Nicolaus Copernicus, 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543
Tycho Brahe, 14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601
Johannes Kepler, December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630
I don't know exactly the foundation of Copernicus of why he concludes with the Heliocentric system, but I believe his observations lead him to this undeniable belief. Therefore, having this collection makes the notions of Brahe not really weighty to displace the Heliocentric system. You forget/"forget" to mention that the system of Brahe is a "Geo-Helio-centric" system. Brahe also makes a few distinctions to the theory of his (one of many) predecessor, Copernicus. Kepler, being in dissent to Brahe, tries to convince Brahe to accept the Heliocentric view. There's clearly disagreement in this period in science while I think your post suggests that the "world" accepts the Brahe view as reality (which isn't true).
It may very well be that Brahe enters a scientific debate rather than being the epitome of re-established Geocentric view. I don't know if the Heliocentric view has been overturned after its establishment. I find this hard to believe. So, perhaps, one should look into how the Heliocentric view has fared in history of science before one jumps to conclusions.
It's incredibly interesting what you point out, that Brahe falls back on the Geocentric view when in fact the Heliocentric view has been before him. Very well, I'll look into it (then, future interest).
If one goes through the material very tediously, I believe the course of science (progression) is perfectly aligned with The Efficiency Argument. If not The Efficiency Argument, then at least my version of Cumulativism in the expression of Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology, (ICT). Here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...ms-are-not-true-36964.html.
There may be cognitive reports of crazy people reporting demons in their heads and that this activity can be traced using the (f)MR(I) machine, beyond that there's nothing in your post that enters The Efficiency Argument (TEA). Remember that TEA focus on the theory/explanation that's produced and what is efficient with your example? Does it enable me in any degree to navigate the "landscape" of demons and their behaviour?
You can disregard the references to the three philosophers. They are not important to the argument, but they have been and are inspiration, one "friend", two "foes".
I have the ideal of perfectly formulated theories and laws of nature, not being expressed in any probability/statistics rating, but it's important to take notice that good scientific work also investigates causal directions and can in the bare being also be only descriptive.
1. should be a formality.
So having the view that probabilities are mostly representative and working as a descriptive tool and always are underdetermined, I think it's important to see what leads up to these percentages and as such the theories and laws are not the most important, maybe.
jaoman writes: "Also, do you know that Ethics/Morals were composed by the Greeks, whose religious foundation was sharply different from anything in modern times? Indeed, Greek Ethics/Morals have very little to do with religion."
It doesn't take away the problem that's issued here, you! smiling face Besides, Greek belief may still indicate a kind of naturalistic Religion, but I'm at loss to be specific. It's still early thought and that particularly should mean something in this relation, moving from Polytheism to Monotheism, f.x.
jaoman writes: "If early thought arrives at the idea of Ethics and Morals without appealing to religious authority, surely mature thought is still capable of the same feat."
While the Greek have been busy describing the world at that stage, we now face this dichotomy of "humans as limited organisms, only existing in a span of time" and "humans as eternal, immortal beings, having a kind of place in the Universe/God's Heaven". It may very well be for this reason, that Greek thought has been taking care of more mundane concerns and also been having the underpinning/assumption of human kind coming to the natural end whatever it may be to the world they may well think to exist infinitely. We now know the sun is going to swallow earth, not to mention other concerns or opportunities our advanced Astronomy gives us! There are surely differences! I think you have to see this, too!
jaoman wrote:
For that matter, how do you answer to secular morality systems such as Utilitarianism?
I think they are weak! For that matter, secularism may play fine roles of negotiating several belief systems in one society, but that's also its only merit!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
Believing in science is not an atheist thing; it is a responsible person thing. If you can't be responsible because of your religious convictions,
then we can properly identify you as immoral.
That's true! If I betray my own religion, I'm certainly immoral, but this doesn't contribute to the thread, I think.
Kwalish Kid wrote:
Now you are really going off the deep end. What is a "size"?
A concept with a "weight" or something thereof. There are many good interpretations on Dictionary.com such as: 2. considerable or great magnitude: to seek size rather than quality, 4. extent; amount; range: a fortune of great size. It's just a wording from a naturally non-English speaker. Just repeat the "Ethics/Morals and Meaning" and you'll be good!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
The rest of this post is simply more of the same incoherent ranting that we have come to expect from this poster.
Clearly, this is an ad hominem and such won't help you out of this intellectual problem of being an Atheist or help you with your existential anguish being an Atheist! Why don't you address the sentences properly rather than spilling your vomit! Man!
Banno wrote:
The contention, at the start of the second paragraph, that atheists cannot make genuine moral considerations, is pig ignorant. It deserves scant
reply.
Banno, there's certainly a difference between making a genuine moral consideration and a real moral consideration and I believe you are apt to see this. Again you are unfounded and you certainly fail to quote me!
I can't see how I'm being unfair! Isn't it true that Atheism is embracing the end of human kind more lightly than Religious believers? It's almost an assumption in Atheism that the life of human kind is limited! This is at least a point of this thread!
I can also say that it's very much too early to suggest that the success of Western culture is due to Atheism. That whole culture is mostly post-Christian and still a good portion of scientists today are Religious! Japan, with South-Korea, Taiwan and parts of India and Pakistan has also been able to achieve technology and standards of Western culture. I don't know so much about eastern Religious thinking, but I'm curious of how they view Atheism.
baden511 wrote:
I just think you need to refine your argument because you seem to be trying to say too many different things at once. And some of your examples
like the ones above don't really make sense. Putting Japan in the same bracket as Pakistan in terms of religious belief, for example, is like
putting Richard Dawkins in the same bracket as the Pope.
To my knowledge, most of Japan adheres to one religion or another. I don't think Japan is considered Atheistic in any significant sense! Yes? More on this: According to the CIA World Factbook 84% to 96% adhere to Shinto and Buddhism while 4% to 16% of the demographic population adhere to other religions or non-religious, atheist groups.
I believe I'm thoroughly within academic standards for addressing the apparent paradox of being Atheist when it comes to the ontology of Ethics/Morals and Meaning as Mariner has sided with me in! Meaning at least is to Atheism nothing more than what adheres to the world of human kind while this is quite different for Religious people. So and so...
I agree that "modern legal and cultural ethical systems are based more on secular rules and human-oriented bias than they are on religious revelation", but these, I believe, are not there for Atheistic reasons. They are there for making accommodation to a plural society where many religions (and non-) and cultures meet.
Really, are Atheists given incentives in the form of Heaven and Hell? I believe they are not! I doubt Atheists are committed in particular to anything at all. If you can get away with, not being caught by the police, a vicious act, I see two different mind-sets of the Atheist and the Religious. Atheist: "Hah, I've gotten away with it!" Religious: "Oh shit! I'm going to burn in "Hell" for this. My soul is shit!" I can understand the good intent of responsible Atheists for taking it as far as it can go in respects to the enterprise of the human kind, but I fail to understand any definite obligation.
baden511 wrote:
"You have to consider quality as well as quantity here. Japan's religious beliefs consist in sets of social practices that are largely
nontheistic in nature, that don't require faith in the same way that monotheistic religions do and that are set in the context of a progressive
secular society. There is no sensible parallel to be drawn with countries like Pakistan."
Taken, though I still have doubts toward whether they are wholly "non-theistic". I've just made a note on being Religious and as such, I'm right, yet not in the "human in the Universe and in the relation to salvation and infinity" notion. Any expert to join in?
As I understand it from Wikipedia, both Shintoism and Buddhism incorporate to a large extent some concepts of spirituality and possibly infinity in whatever, rebirth, Nirvana, Buddha-matrix, some stuff. I think they're more "theistic" on the personal level than you would like to know, perhaps, yet I have no clue myself! I'm just speculating from what I've read about the two rel. on Wikip.
I'd say this conscience is to larger extents founded and present in Religious people than in Atheists. F.x. take the sentence that all people are created in God's image. Isn't this something undeniably good?
I agree on the part of sanity, but I find that Atheists give up more easily in the face of adversity or possibilities that invite to wrongful behaviour. Religious people are more stalwart because they, on a personal level, have expectations of reward on a metaphysical, religious ground. I see no reason for Atheists to necessarily behave decent because there's nothing more than mere existence to that system of belief. Not only that, but Atheists widely believe that human kind isn't more than a limited time-span to be repeated again on another planet or not at all. It's like the view that every human effort is futile because in the Big Picture nothing MATTERS! This is key in this thread! In facing such a picture, people may easily become depressed and give up on ideals! This may cause dangers in human relations in the future! Yet, I find that you speak of being good and all that which is just fine, but this real address of this futility isn't answered by any of you who are Atheists or take that side in this thread. I think this is funny... perhaps sad...
Authority, no! However, I'm a Deist and I can report on my own challenges. I can also imagine... Less of infinity, mere biological organism... so on...
(I barely recall some psychological study that has come to the conclusion that being good has lead to better morale. The word is "morale" with an e which makes me think of the generals leading an army and being good on so on... This is a while back so it's with doubt I mention it.)
To the readers of this thread:
Can you tell me
the devotion of people who think they are mere biological organisms with limited time (Atehists, like it or not)
as opposed to
the devotion of people who think they are souls with nurturing duties of that to achieve rewards of infinity and "Heaven" or punishment of "Hell"
please?
swstephe,
I agree that Atheists, ideally, can be as good people as Religious, but Atheists lack the definite underpinning of anything beyond this mortal
life, whether you consider this to be only your own life span of the span of the history of human kind. This is a fact.
I can't deliver a taxonomy on Religious beliefs, but surely, by Religious I mean an unbreakable belief in infinity which exists in most Religious
beliefs. The Brights' Net describes a beliefs in ghosts to be contrary to their cause...
Sashianova
There are differences between Moral Realism and Moral Constructivism or Moral Fictionalism that I think you fail to see. Moral is real to
Religious people because it has a bearing on their duties to infinity and to the view that people carry a message of miracle or such while
Atheists can be moral to make life more enjoyable and nice in this span as defined by the very Atheist, beyond this there's nothing in reality
that justifies Morality, it's purely a practical institution/faculty.
REX23
I don't deny that Atheists can be as good as or better than many Religious people. Your sentiment is good and I have no problem with that. However,
I take the possibility of fatality while sending the message that we should think twice before we accept Atheism as progress and advancement. We
may miss or lose incredibly important intuitions if we let go of Religion. I deeply encourage people to stay Religious or become Religious because
it's the best without risking to lose anything. All Religions, the major ones incl. Scientology, carry a positive message yet the practice of some
believers, especially Muslims today, is not so good.
subversivephilosopher
Pointing to the devotion of a "mere biological organism" should speak for itself. The reality of moral in Atehists vs. Religious is very differently
founded and you should know this! It's therefore it says "for real"! If you assert that Ethics/Morals and Meaning are good because people behave
better and feel better, you must admit that this justification is wholly psychological and not real! Even if you take Paul Bloomfield's argument
that Morals bring better health you are still at a loss because it's only valid for a certain span of time and it may still be that some vicious
people retain much of their health to the extent that it's impossible to effectively separate a good person's health from this vicious person's
health.
You are inexperienced on PF (8 posts), but I expect you to do the service where I'm doing the "disservice". Religious people are called delusional,
how insulting isn't that? God!
As for process, I've been writing and thinking of philosophy at least since 1998 so I certainly should be processing or taking part in a process
for that reason. Also, this thread is now 6 pages which is also a result of a process. Good?
I am soundly in Moral Realism, being a Moral Realist. My belief in moral is reflected in reality down to the very smallest particle/Monad! When
you point out my generalisation of Religious/Atheist, it's because I spare myself of the time of taxonomy of Religions I don't know so much about.
Take the Religions in India, f.x.
That you point to the weakness of Atheism of not dealing with mystery is good, but they want it that way and refuse to see any point in mystery
like "existence"! I share this notion!
Also, I demand that you quote me where I accuse people [Atheists?] of being amoral and devoid... I think you're presenting a straw man here which
is unfair!
Mariner
""[T]ribal reasonings""!
I mean, Dawkins starts off with naming God belief God delusion. In a sense, tribal reasonings exist in every philosophical discussion, sometimes
they are called "camps"!
If you defend no camp, what is it worth? I can see value in all ideas, even those of Hitler, but if I'm supposed to be honest, I have to choose
side! Being in a camp (hopefully having knowledge to back it up) is for me a matter of honesty! "Dispassion" has this far not been sensible to me.
[Edit:] If we look at "unwritten social rules" (or Mariner's "socially dominant habits"), I sense Atheists are more willing to comply with these, these being criminal actions! No? That is, Atheists have potentially more Moral closet skeletons of immorality than the Religious person, especially one who is adamant. I hope you understand what I mean by "unwritten social rules".
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"What does this even mean? Atheists aren't devoted to a deity by definition. They are often devoted to their spouses."
Yes, that's true! I want people to compare those two views/devotions and what it may mean to them!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"Where do you get this garbage? Many atheists are moral realists! The great moral realists in the history of philosophy did not base their
theories on religious beliefs."
How can they be Moral Realists without supporting themselves on grounds of society or physical/mental health? How does this go beyond
possibilities that arise from being "mere biological organisms with limited time"?
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"So you are using a non-religious standard of what is and isn't good. Why don't we just get rid of the religions that lead to such not good
practices and get people to simply use your non-religious standard of what is good?"
The Religious teachings don't imply wrongful practices and are only peaceful when properly followed! Witness the large population of Religious
people in the world who are very peaceful and in accordance with their beliefs (to a large extent, at least)!
Kwalish Kid wrote:
"Many awful, worthless things last without improvement. Your philosophical thinking does not improve because you are committed to holding
a single religious position without ever considering it. You have already made your decisions about what atheists think without ever learning
anything about it."
This comes out as vastly psychologistic! How can you know anything about my Religious considerations going back to when I'm 15 or 16 y.o.?
You are presumptuous despite adhering to "honesty" and "rigorous scientific inquiry"! Naughty, you!
The concept of Monades is quite popular even today! I guess it means that I join Leibniz and Lady Conway in their madness! Can you cure me, please! Ehh... Not!
Ahh... Those comfortable scenes of Heaven... Great calm and ease of mind.. The revelation that makes perfect sense.. Just think about it! Golden teeth.. Very well.
Makarismos writes:
"The title "a challenge to Richard Dawkins and the atheists" promised so much; especially since their is so much that is inconsistent in
Dawkins thoughts regarding religion. What I have discovered is the usual loggerheads: one side claiming that their view is obvious or necessary
or else absurd consequence's will follow (guess which one! Yes, its both of them!)."
This is good! What do you say to pessimistic Atheists? To the pessimistic Religious person it can be something like: "keep doing the right thing, eventually you'll get rewarded!" You know, the Atheist can risk dying without getting any rewards of his belief system! In some respects, therefore, a Religious believer is guaranteed reward because of the beliefs held while an Atheist receives... nothing, but amputation of joys, good life and the pains of death itself. Does the bell ring for some people here?
To Kwalish Kid
For a starter, I've been looking into Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality as a possible argument not demanding any Religious view like that of
Kant's (although he espouses the Kingdom of Ideas, in the back of his hand there's Catholicism).
I also want to go through with the argument! What do you suggest that I read? Ignorance... What?!
The rest will be as it is. There's no need for more words, now.
To WW_III_ANGRY
Can't you read? If you can, why don't you be more specific? There are no problems with Atheism? Atheists believe in Ethics/Morals and Meaning
for real just as much as Religious people? Where's the reward of moral behaviour for the Atheist if there's no money, no better material life
and no more drinking beer? I can see that some bonds may be strengthened for the Atheist who is moral, but even those may not bring anything
immediate other than having the possibility to die with respect from the loved ones/friends.
Makarismos writes:
"Are you seriously suggesting that pascals wager is somehow a good reason to believe in god? Seriously?"
To people who are considering a kind of Religion, Pascal's Wager may be a good way, at least initially! In the minimal sense, one is to
some degree considering those possibilities of infinity and nurture of the soul. This should be an improvement! So this is true, when you
mention Pascal's Wager, you are indeed capturing a part of my argument in being serious about entities or truths outside of one's realm!
Very good!
I can still posit the qualification that this is an argument in favour of those who have the notion of inifinity in their Religious views!
To Sashianova
I withdraw on the issue of Moral Realism. I've been wrong there! Sorry! Still, I find it valid to point to the difference of duties and values
between Atheists and Religious people. This whole thread is about the possible dangers if it comes to the situation that people are coerced
by Atheistic incentives to use force on other people in order to sustain themselves and their way of living. If people begin to find nothing
else to fight for than luxuries, I fear the worst! The resources are definitely going to be more strained in the future with the growing world
population. Not only this, but if people fail to support some possible eternal aspect that has real value of some kind out of being Atheists,
I sense chances may be wasted of achieving some really marvellous feat!
The scenario is this: people turn Atheists (100%) because the immaterial rewards can't be proven or fail to be proven scientifically. Crises
emerge and a greater part of the Atheists is forced into depressive conditions, forcing through conflicts of the severe kind. Then slavery
comes into existence, because one finds the need to the work force, yet the Atheistic riches are beyond everyone! In some respects, there's
greater risk of failing one's duties from the Atheistic side than from the Religious side. Atheism is a more fragile system/belief where its
followers are more easily swayed to immorality if the circumstances don't go their way! This may be dangerous or become a threat to humanity
in the future. I'm just saying it. I'm not some Fatalist spelling doom and destruction, but I find the optimism in Religiousness so compelling
that I like to tell you about it!
Let me spell it out a different way: Dawkins fails to acknowledge that if either of the entities God, soul, Heaven or infinity by moral
behaviour, are true, then Atheism is false as we know it! You may miss a part of the picture if you waste your good being to the haphazard
occasion! If you fail a certain level of moral, you may find your "soul", yet to be proven, to be doomed!
So in a difficult situation an Atheist may opt to "sell the soul" for short-term benefit of some kind. My support in this, is for the Religious
people who stick it out until the end, who stay honourable despite being in an environment that pushes toward immorality and indecency, who are
able to never lose hope and wear the storm off, who are able to see the light in the tunnel.
In this system of resilience, I name the victor the Religious people! Because they have inherent, integral reasons for carrying the torch to
the destination!
I wonder if I share some of Ayn Rand's Unknown Ideal here, that there's an abundance of positive effects in the future in making one's way
through with something that's worth the fight! I suggest at least that this "something" is the adherence to a high standard of moral, something
a Religious person can call the nurture of the soul in infinite terms!
Sashianova writes:
"The OP is of the opinion that every living person is motivated to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment in the
afterlife."
This should read: "The OP is of the opinion that every living person can be motivated to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment or reward in the afterlife." This is an important difference! It should also read: "The OP is of the opinion that every living person is more fragile in one's adherence to moral in case of adversity to do wrong without belief in the threat of infinite punishment or reward in the afterlife." These are basically the two claims of this thread and they should speak for themselves!
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
"What are you challenging atheists to do? Why do you think I need a reward (as an atheist) for living "morally"? Why do you need a reward to
do such? Are you challenging atheists to provide rewards for living morally to other atheists or something? You want them to believe in a
reward for living morally?
Yes, I want all people to live morally for the sake of being moral among other things, such as enjoying and appreciating your own life in all your aspects. This is a call to moral on behalf of aspects that may miss the Atheistic account! Some facts are likely to be missed because of the relatively "narrow" view of Atheism!
Sashianova wrote:
"Every living person can be motivated to do wrong with or without belief in infinite punishment, and the adherence to morality is only as
fragile as the will of each person. There is no correlation between moral adherence and belief."
This is exactly what I'm arguing for. That Religion compels one in a more steady way than Atheism and that there is actually correlation between moral adherence and belief of infinity. The stake of the Religious person is infinity, while the illusory stake (the real stake is the same as for the Religious person) of the Atheist is only that short span of factual life and possibly the enterprise of the human kind. Atheism is short-sighted! Trading in for limitedness instead of infinity!
In the PN forum, Wootah has supplied an excellent link: http://creation.com/the-darwinian-roots-of-the-nazi-tree-weikart-review. I think it supports my case to some extent! I hope you like it!
You'll have to admit that Atheism is in danger of missing important Truths about the whole thing, after-life-existence, God, Heaven and Hell, infinity and all that... There's real danger that Atheism leaves something (important) out!
mric wrote:
You'll have to admit that Chemistry is in danger of missing important Truths about the whole thing, phlogiston, alchemy, earth air fire and
water, and all that.... There's real danger that Chemistry leaves something (important) out!
First of all, they're not equivalent! You seem to miss the crucial difference that phlogiston, alchemy, earth air fire and water have all been subject to (open) scientific scrutiny and phlogiston, alchemy are just completely out of the picture! The traditional 4 elements of the earth are now explained differently than in the past, ie. been "reduced". As such, after-life-existence, God, Heaven and Hell, infinity are all entities subject to scientific investigation, but they're hard to get the hands on, therefore they are also subject to credible belief in a Religious person! Thus I conclude that your twist is a matter of blatant stupidity, totally missing the case or just being non-sense joke to which you refuse to add a smile!
swstephe
I think Religious believers are likely to argue for Moral Realism while Atheists are likely to argue for every theory in the spectrum
incl. Nihilism.
Let's also consider a possible nuclear war.
The Religious person is confronted with the action of pushing the button and destroying God's creation!
The Atheist is confronted with doing what's necessary, sending the nukes or not!
Clearly, the attachment to the Earth is different in an Atheist and a Religious person.
Descartes and Newton both see that the mission is to describe the miracle of all, the world, life and the lot!
Consider this:
I think Religious believers are likely to argue for Moral Realism while Atheists are likely to argue for every theory in the spectrum
incl. Nihilism.
Clearly, the attachment to the Earth is different in an Atheist and a Religious person.
Descartes and Newton both see that the mission is to describe the miracle (from God) of all, the world, life and the lot!
(We leave the nuclear war out for now! Hrmph...!)
MC.Pearce writes:
"Merely being a religious believer doesn't guarantee an acceptable moral system. I'm not simply saying individuals break the rules of their
religion. You could have a theist who believes in the virtues of human sacrifice (a la the Aztecs etc.), so their morality is actively evil.
Or somekind of deist who believes in a god but believes that god merely set the rules of physics in motion and has zero interest in human
actions or their morality."
So, saying atheism doesn't necessarily entail an acceptable ethical system is true, but exactly the same charge is true of theism.
First of all, I think evolution has done away with all unhealthy Religions, so the Religions today have survived through a qualifying
process! This means also that there's no virtue in human sacrifice! In this sense, Religions are the result of ideas that are
good and what goodness consists in. I contend that "Atheism doesn't necessarily entail an ethical system" at all! I also
think that "exactly the same charge is true of theism." is contradictory. Why do you bother to have something holy or precious if it's
not right? I mean "right" to the best ability of discerning something as right! It misses something. When you announce something holy,
it means there's an eternal, immaterial value about it! This goes nicely together with the qualifying process of evolution of Religions.
You question Deism and I think a problem with Deism is that it isn't organised so that its members are more inclined to the same moral.
But still, Deism announces what's precious and if that concept is empty, there's no use with one's God belief!
Deism: http://moderndeism.com/index.html and http://www.deism.com/index.html. Two of the best I suppose.
If we're to follow your broad thinking the 'Atheist' as you've been defining him/her, would have the most to fear from the end of
the world - because there isn't anything afterwards - the Christian is safe in the knowledge that there is a Heaven out there.
The end that the Atheist fears so much is one of the postulates in that very belief! The Christian needs to nurture one's own soul in
order to be infinitely rewarded or face the eternal punishment! So, Heaven is not necessarily out there, not in any way
guaranteed!
The Religious person is only rewarded if the code of conduct/moral is followed! You should know this!
swstephe writes:
"Atheism is the default and natural winner of any debate at the level of logic and based on physical evidence."
The real fault lies at the prediction! This prediction says that there's no possibility of God and I think this is very wrong!
baden511 writes:
"Here's my line: The laws of physics may change in the sense that they become more refined in terms of their predictive power, but their
fundamentals are inviolable within the universe as we know it, so supernatural powers like levitation or producing loaves and fishes out
of the air etc. are ruled out. What happens outside the universe as we know it, on the other hand, if there is an outside, is, for now,
a matter of speculation."
The real question revolves around the possibility of finding new laws/entities of physics. This is as I understand it, ruled out by
Atheism. Therefore I think Atheism is short-sighted. "Openness" has been mentioned and I think it goes a long way for both sides.
JezCave writes:
"But If I could be an atheist or theist when it came to the after life, I'd feel less fear being a theist because there is that option
to go to Heaven... Wasn't one of your arguments about pebbles? And how if you have a wider area covering the pebbles you're covering
more of the options?"
Perhaps not only the options, but the very Truths!
Quote again: "But It's okay, you're a deist - we're in this together, brother!"
Taken, until death, then!
The video (loosely): "...how do you explain that 83% of Danes and Swedes subscribe to Church? That's a very important question. Their Christianity is more cultural... (bla, bla)" So the video isn't a case for Atheism at all!
Speaking of this limitation of being a mere biological organism with limited time span... I believe it's a common prediction by Atheism that we're all f**ked. We probably won't get off this planet and so... So certainly, Atheism doesn't have this Refuge of infinity and "Heaven" that Religious people believe in. I'll check this out! You'll have this point for now!
sleeter
You seem to argue from the point of view of a highly moral Atheist, yet you admit "You can't talk about a presence or lack of deontological
moral or ethical standards, because 'atheist' doesn't necessitate such a thing."
You can safely assume that the Earth is holy to the Religious and as such taking part in its destruction very much qualifies to an eternal
damnation in "Hell". Where's this incentive then to the Religious? I believe it's certainly level to or above the Atheist in relation to
the Earth. But so and so... "Insane" people will never have the opportunity anyhow.
"Atheistic people aren't any more or less likely to be mislead towards evil than theistic people are." How can the Atheist know?
There is nothing evil to them!
JezCave
There's no impossibility to state one's real conviction in a poll like the Eurobarometer poll cited by mric.
mric
From http://www.t-lea.net/Evolution.html: "I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard
Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions,
kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never
directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous
other "theoretical" particles by other theories."
Makarismos
Then I'd like you to demonstrate how it can be meaningful to believe in God without a moral code! What you assert by "The two things
1)belief in God 2)a moral code, are seperate." just seem impossible to me. With God comes Heaven and Hell and the duties. How can you
believe in something perfect, yet fail to see any qualification on living up to this perfection? That the 2 things are separate issues
simply isn't true! Name one major Religion where this is the case! Such a Religion doesn't exist!
However, if they truly are, you're right, my argument fails, but then again if this is case, this thread wouldn't have been initiated!
The accusation of Dawkins' "hidden story" wouldn't be made.
Belief in God does by necessity require one to accept an ethical standard.
Makarismos
Name one major Religion where this, "there is no ethical standard", is the case!
sleeter
The fact that Atheism can't be connected to moral frameworks is exactly my point because this is in stark contrast to the Religious
person, typically, who have the moral rules laid down.
Put in a different way, your group of immoral Atheists is proportionately bigger than my group of crazy, suicide-bombing Religious
people.
As for the Holy Earth, to be respected and to be commanded. The two can go together, actually.
As for the scientific standard of ethics, there isn't one. Ethics can go in every direction outside Religion.
The notion of Evil suggests severity in Religion, in Atheism, there's no such thing even though you scale those wrongful actions.
I think your belief in God is clearly lacking in quality and I also think you are outside the major Religions because I fail to sense
respect to this God you believe in.
For any possible misunderstanding coming from the opposition in discussion, I think I'll wait to see where this is going. I also
continuously learn and build experience.
jorndoe wrote: "You do not believe that at least half of the Danish population fall into non-religious categories, rather their "real conviction" is that of Christianity (or similar)?" Let me just ask, to better understand: To you, are moral obligations the reason to entertain religious beliefs, regardless of what the truth of things may actually be? (e.g. neverending bliss versus fear of neverending punishment, as a motivator/deterrent, in all people, independently of what any truth may be) The numbers of mric say "19% responded to the survey as actively believing there is no sort of god, spirit or life force." meaning essentially 19% Atheists and 49% of Danes believing in a "spirit or life force" meaning Religious people and those in between Agnostics. I think it goes both ways, moral obligations are the reason to entertain religious beliefs and vice versa. I believe it's impossible to align with "...regardless of what the truth of things may actually be?" Rather, interpretations are being made of applying the "gold standard" of current Ethics to new facts like stem cell research and GMOs, in a sense continuing the drawing of the Ethical map to the point of now. At its core, one is biased toward preserving the Holy objects and go from there. Makarismos This is the most meager proof of a theist without moral code. It surely is in your head, that's what I can say. For the requirement and the actual history/evolution of Religions, you don't give a damn, apparently. sleeter You're right, I believe there's a cognition in most people of "immorality" and I also think it's very much possible to describe an Objective Ethical Framework. If this isn't good in your eyes, then, at least, criminals exist and people can draw their own conclusions. You can go on and play the God believer all you want, but people will look through you, you know. God isn't a shifting wind and the Moses'es to go up on the mountain and come down with the 10 commandments are not so frequent.
jorndoe wrote: "So, you admit the possibility of religious beliefs being inaccurate (or even plain false), and yet such beliefs are appropriate as a basis for ethics in general?" Yes! There may in fact be no God or any such, but I believe Religious people follow deep intuitions in their belief as well as the inability of science to answer many questions and to have credible meaning in their lives. Quote: "Where does that leave an active, non-arbitrary consideration of a situation (which includes respect, empathy/compassion, conscience, social sustainability, etc), as opposed to justifying actions by referring to an old (inconsistent, ambiguous) book?" I see no necessary contradiction of "active, non-arbitrary consideration of a situation (which includes respect, empathy/compassion, conscience, social sustainability, etc)" to Religious belief. This "old (inconsistent, ambiguous) book" is outdated, but this doesn't prevent one to keep the Holiness/Holy objects. These "undecidables (as well as the negation of these)" are not necessarily "undecidables" in the future! Quote: "History have already taught us that there is no basis for assuming correlation between moral behaviour and religious beliefs." I contend this. I believe there is need for more and accurate studies in this field. I am suggesting that people choose Religiousness (whatever they like) for the benefits, even Agnosticism may be somewhat good. With dear Milton, I can't understand how he can write this with certainty!
Let me put a needle into your romantic view of "Atheistic" Denmark: it's reported from http://e24.no/utenriks/article3504174.ece (in Norwegian, sorry) that at this moment there are more Danes who live off the state than there are Danes contributing (as a share off income) to it! I find it troubling, but... Note: The fertility rate in Denmark is (150th place) for 2005-2010, 1.80 (births/woman) which is not sustainable (appx. 2,20). Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ritories_by_fertility_rate. Let me also thereof add as assertions of possibility: God-/religious-belief makes you inspired to work harder God-/religious-belief makes you inspired to work better God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to be more constructive at work God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to be more constructive in society God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to raise a more healthy family God-/religious-belief makes you more optimistic and thus encourages you to view future more positively
I'd rather phrase it: "Beliefs that possibly are delusions, can have powerful influences on a person's behavior", but then again Absurdity lurks on the other side/aside of Religiousness! Btw, Soviet Union has been marked by two very bad ideas: Atheism and Communism! Let me put another needle into your romantic view of "Atheistic" Denmark: it's reported today, 7th Feb. 2010, that every 10th Dane suffers from seriously bad mental health. The report: http://www.sst.dk/Nyhedscenter/Nyh...Mental_sundhed_status.aspx (it's in Danish, sorry). It also says that there's a worsening trend among young women, aged 16-24, of who 13% reported bad mental health while this has risen to 18% in 2005 with the same age-group. Atheist...
Means to an end, yes! Playing around with some social data...
jorndoe, you don't address the economic data.
I agree to the misuse of statistics. I've committed a "sin". I've, on the other hand, suggested some specific sociological studies of atheists and religious people in the Social Sciences section.
Soylent
You better make an identification of "amoral theists". The term is new to me. Do really theists have no belief in the core of their belief "system", the moral code? I wonder how they fulfill the criteria of being religious at all.
Perhaps we should rename the "amoral theists". "Amoral theists" = "Formal theists".
I'd rather say: "formal theism" = atheism.
This thread is this: A Challenge to [...] the Atheists -> Accept (unwavering) humanism and ecology as much as you probably like to say: Cognitive moral -> "God's" moral (no more "messages from God" and wacko suicide-bombing and what have you) Alright? It doesn't make sense (at least to me) to only believe in a God and not the moral that's supposed to follow it. What kind of theists are you writing about, anyway? It suggests only that this God-belief is "empty" or "reactionary"!
It says just above your post: "Accept (unwavering) humanism and ecology". Humanism is as far as I know full of ethics/morals! Humanists are (usually, if not agnostic) atheists. I don't really know how useful it is to read everything with screwed/hostile attitude. Still, you fail to acknowledge the ontological status of actually ending up in "Hell"/"Heaven" and just to commit a moral mistake.
Why is the nature as it is? Who knows? It should be noted that all matter, by my knowledge, is eventually converted into photons.
I'm startled what "will" in God is supposed to mean. I believe God is totally constrained by being God and there's nothing else to do other than being God. I mean, if you are perfect, how can you step "outside" and be imperfect? It doesn't make sense!
Maybe you are interested in these: A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy, based on Plotinus. Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID) The Modal Logical Argument of NDNID, logical formalisation.
I've been thinking of the finitude. Isn't it a requirement that they are supposed to actually enter a set rather than presupposing the extent of the set. Such that any infinite set is by definition impossible because to write/record such a set is impossible. One can take the full extent of human history, fx. Not only is it incredibly large if one is to count everyone into it at this moment with 6.8 Billion people, but also going back and looking at what is recorded, and going forward, thinking about the possible future limits/infinite. Well, at least, the set can grow incredibly big, but never become infinite for obvious reasons. What do you think? (I'm not particularly acquainted with the formal language of this type of mathematics and thus this comes in plain language. Excuse me.) Note: it's ended by Jorndoe's comment, "Aetixintro, what you're suggesting seems more along the lines of supertasks (or hypertasks)."
Comment: One should point out that preconditions/axioms for knowledge aren't really knowledge themselves.
Formally, you can (probably/likely) put them in the same basket (knowledge), but you don't say anything by uttering/writing/expressing them.
I don't think ethics/morality applies to insane people at all, most of all because they are insane, ie., lacking in cognitive ability. It's almost as if you're begging for an ethically/morally blind person to understand this person's blindness, the lack of ethics and morals. They don't go together. I'd rather look for remedies for preventing such a condition to occur in the first place.
I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?
Hasn't it always been a "game of axioms"? Axioms don't come by themselves. They do represent hard work. So you say that the identification of the various axioms to a system makes this a different system than it's supposed to establish in the first place? You probably would like to introduce some kind of language-gaming element to every system there is then, yes?
Hasn't it always been a "game of axioms"? Axioms don't come by themselves. They do represent hard work. So you say that the identification of the various axioms to a system makes this a different system than it's supposed to establish in the first place? You probably would like to introduce some kind of language-gaming element to every system there is then, yes?
Education is a system for making people able to solve all the problems we have at hand. That's probably the reason we have good contraceptives, plastics, engines, perfumes and so on... with all the technology and science. In a sense, I think education is the tool that let you be more of a friend to your friends and as far as you can go from there, you'll just be greater friends!
Women are indeed some ardent sunbathing people with or without using sunblock. Perhaps, men are even less sunbathing, but I stick to the theory for now and wait to see what the future brings. One should remember that the mode of one's relationship with one's own feelings/nerve signals/neurology is a quite big issue/factor in the actual person's and as such, I think this factor (feelings/nerve signals/neurology) may be decisive above rather minor factors such as diet. I very much agree, however, that smoking (a lot) or sunbathing without using sunblock are cancer causing activities, but cancers strike differently than staying persistently in this specific pattern. [Edit:] I also think nerves/nerve threads are a lot more pervasive/permeative than what is commonly known, at least in some people (some people think that nerves/nerve threads belong only in the skin). This should also be considered.
It's my view that the feelings/nerve signals/neurology are helping/controlling the body and more or less telling the body where to attack and where to hold off. This is part of the theory that feelings are just an addition to the largely rational system of being a body, that is rational according to function! I think one has devoted very little research on the issue of how the nerve signals work in the body and that I think there may be a "gold mine" there to be discovered in how nerve signals relate to the body, to the genes, to the immune system, to whole... The "Happy mood"-part is on you as my theory doesn't necessarily contain such an element. I'd rather say that your mood should reflect realities!
Posted Feb 5, 2010 - 7:49 AM:
As a Deist, I certainly believe in an intelligent cause effectuating our universe and all in it. I've made an argument here that may interest you: Advancing Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design (NDNID)
I side with jsidelko in post #8 and I like to add that science is agnostic in its openness to the future.
The words
Willowz writes:
"x - HUMAN = AI , true?
HUMAN - x = Zombie"
I think these two statements represent quality and fine moment on PF. Perhaps not revolutionary, but very nice!
Posted Feb 2, 2010 - 1:55 PM: X marks the spot.
AI + Zombie = 0 , true?
I'd say you have AI in an "empty" (organic) body. Perhaps, when we have developed DNA processors and can put this into an artificially grown body, you may see what "0"-entity this is!
I must commend you, Willowz on doing this, I've never seen it done before. Thanks!
Willowz writes: "x-HUMAN = AI , true? HUMAN-x = Zombie"
To say that countries like Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Malaysia and Singapore (only a state?) have no room for intellectual thought, is bold indeed! Perhaps, too bold.
It seems Wittgenstein is wrong to criticise Moore if "I live on the earth", "I have two hands", "2+2=4", "I am a person" are those that he is attacked for. As far as an object is subject to knowledge, they will always fall under the scrutiny of Epistemology. It's strange that Moore is attacked on such obvious propositions. I also think the propositions are made up of well defined words. Yeah... Let's see what falls out!
Time for some introspection?
However, I don't deny the phenomenon. It isn't very...
I'd say on some personal level that I expect some kind of eternity, "Heaven" or "Hell", rebirth/incarnation or not!
Firstly, it seems that Deontological Ethics and Rule Utilitarianism converge into the same good ethical picture. Further, Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism resemble the discussion of Universals and Particulars in Metaphysics in which case I just say both! I bow to this. I can't see any important differences.
Utilitarianism Ethics = Deontological Ethics (identity)
"Why do we doubt in death's finality?" Because some people can talk to the dead or see ghosts! More seriously, there's a definite feeling/sense of seeing a person go from alive to dead, I think. Like the dead person is missing a crucial feature/quality.
Utilitarianism is rather a crude approach to situations of ethics. It's very much ready to kill for the benefit of what is reflected in the numbers. The Utilitarian has this cold approach of letting the quantifications rule the situations. Therefore, Utilitarianism is insensitive and it seems that the person who is the Utilitarian never falls into one's own unfortunate groups of famine, death and destruction.
It appears to me that Nicholas Rescher seems to think of philosophy as only belonging to the actual academia of philosophy, which I find to be intuitively wrong. Nicholas Rescher's definition may also lead to the notion of "ivory tower" and also to academia being a paper mill with no real relevance. I think philosophy enjoys its reputation (vibrant activity) because people everywhere can take part in it, whether as readers or readers and writers or readers and thinkers and writers.
[Edit:] It's funny to note that on the very Wikip. page that describes Rescher's Delphi method, it says: "Secondly, sometimes unconventional thinking of amateur outsiders may be superior to expert thinking." I think this flies in the face of Nicholas Rescher's definition. Is it impossible to formulate a problem or a solution by simply being outside the doors of academia? Surely not! For me, pseudo-philosophy is to step outside the defined fields of the various disciplines of philosophy and to break those "codes"/conventions (which are like HDM in science, wide intakes, but being "no-crap" prohibition) in these fields of making arguments. I don't share anyone's non-expressible approach, but that's just another philosophical discussion.
Possibly, in Bloomfield's sense, a group of animals or humans has greater chances of making the future generations of itself by "morality" insofar it effectuates "physical health" in that group. Yes? If not, what is not understood?
At least, "morality" to effectuate "physical health", perhaps pointing to a basic property in nature in living things. Where it leads to is the cusp of that specie's world.
Theoretical ethics = ethics! Applied ethics = morals! At least, Comment on Companions in Guilt - Arguments for Ethical Objectivity - By Hallvard Lillehammer tries to find a (possible) cognitive common foundation of ethics and without any 'non-natural property of goodness'. You may be out of line here. Even Bloomfield, that you'll find in the thread, speaks of moral realism as (physical) health. I understand you very well if you absolutely have to include 'non-natural property of goodness', but I really think of it more as religious/agnostic than being a goal for ethics itself.
The words should mean exactly the same in every respect.
[Edit:] "Rewriting of ought: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule."
"You ought to brush your teeth"
becomes...
There is a rule that says brush your teeth. This rule is the condition of brushing one's teeth. I follow this rule by brushing my teeth. However, I don't always brush my teeth.
The intention is to simply making the reduction of the convention (possibly) of "ought" by "is" statements, is what I want with this.
Perhaps it can be possible to write it like this:
P5: Physical events cannot cause prior physical events. I'm not certain how self/consciousness works in this picture. C3 (from P4 (and P1)): Causality is necessary for free will1 (at least with respect to the relationship between the will and the willed act).
Like an action of doing school work? There's no domain like school work? Like in the legal sense or in whatever behaviouristic sense of doing something? No?
I think "ought" says this: you have a duty to do, but you can refuse to carry it through. "Ought" doesn't imply necessity and it does include human weakness implicitly. That is, you are likely to do it (as you should), but at times we all break our rules. No? Dictionary.com: 1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help. 2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed. 3. (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers. 4. (used to express probability or natural consequence): That ought to be our train now.
So ethics/morals has a foundation then and not this void you're arguing for? Ethics/morals has function and definitely so.
Why is there a problem with making an acknowledgement that a totally ethical/moral society is the most effective society in every respect? Should this impose problems? Why can't any religious "fantasies" (of Heaven) or atheistic "dreams" (of interplanetary conquers) be just some side-effects?
Rewriting of ought: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule.
What do you think of this ought-less language? Awful? I've been inspired the feedback of my attack on indexicality.
But seriously, has it been the case that ought has been irreducible in the past?
I'm thinking there might be a logic of ethics: instead of true and false, there are right and wrong.
It goes: it is wrong to commit (blind) violence, therefore one does not commit (blind) violence.
This can go on endlessly for every rule (they have to be rules in this) and such the logic of ethics should be clear and the "ought"
is more a convention of saying something.
This being has to be the creator of this and all other universes if they exist. It needs to be perfect in nature and represent this perfection (because of the problem of evil). It needs to infinite (because of the causality against it). It needs to represent infinity also to intelligent beings if not to all matter and energy and "souls" in the universes. What more? Let me think.
[Edit:] It also needs to be coherent with all of science that proves true or is accepted as true today. So this being needs to fulfill criteria of truth to the full extent (not being a "psychological" entity).
My Venus is from the paper of Gottlob Frege named "Sense and Nominatum" (1892) which can be found in The Philosophy of Language (because of its semantics, I suspect) by A. P. Martinich 5th ed.!
It's just my impression that the very metaphysics itself is in great deal supporting itself on logics. It's funny if can make the case for logics and in the next turn make the case for logical contradictions in the logics/metaphysics. I find therefore logics to be complementary to metaphysics, rather than in its contradiction. I believe I've never read any metaphysics that has contained contradictory logics. Just a notice. While you present a general, bizarre case of your own, what about: Morning Star = Evening Star = Venus?
Mikael Birket Brilner writes:
"Well, if we separate between logical identity and metaphysical identity, does that mean that reality is not one?"
No, reality is a combination of these and the rest coherent principles, laws, instances and objects.
[A better answer may this: Aren't they already belonging to separate disciplines, Logics and Metaphysics? Isn't reality one (entity) regardless of your own mindset, i.e., how you like to view this in your head? The answer must be "yes" to both of these questions!]
Jean Francoise writes:
"Gottfied Leibniz proposed a much stronger, and hence controversial claim of the identity of indiscernables, also refered to as
qualitative identity since quality i.e. predicate satisfaction suffices to yield identity: if indiscernable, then identical (i.e.
identical in the metaphysical sense as well as in the logical)."
Can you please tell me how identical in the logical sense isn't also identical in the metaphysical sense? I can't imagine that
logics all of a sudden takes on a different sense once it's applied in metaphysics!
Then,
Logical Identity: Russell's Identity - Here: (existence,x)(Px conjunction (universal,y)(Py conditonal y = x)
and Leibniz' Law - Here: x = y conditional (Px ≡ Py)
Metaphysical Identity is about Personal Identity and has many variations in discussing the phenomenon of Identity.
Postmodern Beatnik writes:
"The problem with "companion in guilt" arguments, however, is that the moral skeptic might be willing to give up the companion as
well. When Mackie formulated his arguments against moral realism, for example, he was perfectly happy to toss away whatever else
fell with it."
This is absolutely no surprise. The skeptic hasn't been convinced and it perfectly falls with that position. It's on the moral
realist to envision a shared belief in objective morals/ethics to the extent of possibly limiting this to only the moral realists
themselves. Other people being subject to the winds of relativism and deviating morals of every other sort.
bjolly writes:
"May I suggest that it's a dependency?"
It's no more a dependency of mine than it's a dependency of yours to think of it as a dependency in me! To the extent it may be
a dependency, it is such because I wish to take part in and believe in the best ideas and also being my devotion to truth.
bjolly writes:
"...efficient cause as evidence for god's existence..."
This is wrong! My belief in God is contentious (written 2nd time). Stop doing these mistakes!
Not necessarily comfort, my moral mistakes have a deeper impact just like moral virtues have the possibility of bliss to the same impact, one going down, the other going up.
I've outlined the foundation for my belief in God and in that foundation I've marked out two elements of a special ontological status. Alright?
jorndoe writes:
So, either you'll have to detail out exactly what the deal is here, or pick one of these two.
Why can't time and God arise at the same time? Perhaps God is God and time and space and causality and the universes. I'm not sure
how to definitely describe God, but it's certainly coherent with all of science in my belief.
You should separate between logical identity and metaphysical identity. I have a suggestion to (personal) identity here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...n-of-identity-36052-2.html.
If there is a need for a new word, languages come up with one... Any phenomena unexpressed? I can't think of any "fly specks on the lens?" Languages are just fine for descriptive uses and serve us perfectly! What deficiencies are there really? Because the deficiencies must be expressed!
It's a piss poor place with deprived people... We in the Western culture, with all our Islamic people and Islamic Justice, he-he-he, we are happy ever after on our fat asses! Let me also mention that a report on rapes throughout the world recently said that the Islamic Yemen and another/two country(ies) had the fewest cases of these, suggesting on the contrary that these places are indeed safe for women!
jorndoe
"There were other points (pending response) earlier in this thread as well." You will have to quote these for me. Also, remember, please, that I don't represent the OP. The opposition in this thread is in these 36 arguments therefore I don't sense responsibility for answering everything. Rather, I take out those relevant/best against my position of Deism.
Yes, implicitly, they are nonetheless only fantasies because the way they are defined put them outside our reality. This is not the case with the (possibly modified) concept of God, which I happen to think, seriously speaking, is mostly coherent in God-believers, one evasive way or another until then.
"Thus, in common terminology, causation is contextual to time; in other words, it is meaningless to speak of causation outside of temporality [infinite God creating the Universe]." This is in your head and not necessarily so! If God is infinite, God is not a-temporal! You make up assumptions!
The stuff about timeless entities must be understood in terms of infinity, not that they are outside of time! Just more irrelevant mongering!
The Kalam argument/Cosmological argument isn't relevant either as it's case fails. You speak, though (after my post in that thread),
of multiple temporal dimensions, something I phrase as one God-entity/entities of (temporal) infinite, dimension [universe of only God]
outside our own or a part of bigger multiverse. This God-dimension, universe may then have this ""interdimensional" causal structure",
possibly.
Self-sacrifice is very admirable! Good for you! But trust me, the best you can do to the ones you love is to show dedication to your (school-)work and your activities. If not, I fear you're going to burn out and be left poor and shitty (although a rather loving person if those ideals are not lost in the process). I'd start with being healthily skeptical of who you can trust and get distant to those who you distrust/fail to connect with. By keeping the best closest, your sacrifice is at least not wasted! I'd also make sure I could keep up the duties (again schoolwork, somethings for your parents), even if this means not spending too much time with friends. I just hate to see good people getting f**ked for having good beliefs of others, so I recommend you keep a tidy and tight line, not making pleas/greetings to everyone. That's it, basically. Stay safe and secure!
The topic title: Existential Problems. Cure: Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard and others like Heidegger. I sense there are two kinds of people in this regard: religious and atheist (agnostics are in the existential problems cat.). If you're without a religion, you might want to check out various religious thought systems eg Buddhism or so. I can recommend Scientology, initially by just buying the basic books (paperback, 50-100$). Or you can search out other Atheists (Sartre being one of them) and what they write. There should be many to choose from. Religious people can rethink a more moderate approach to their religion, choose another, becoming Atheist, reading the various Existentialists and so on. Tell me more of who you are and I'll give some more thoughts to this thread! Look upward!
bjolly wrote: So you support the contention that god exists [due] to meaning? In the sense that god is necessary for meaning? Could you expand on this? I think the entity of God supports meaning much better than Atheism, usually taking the view that Human Kind is doomed and has a limited time span. God gives meaning because God provides infinity to the world of Human Kind, speculatively. There may be a chance, with God, for rebirth in new universes or on other planets or on earth again on some other occasion or just reclining in God in some meaningful way. I don't know, but there is more strength with God in this sense than without. It's still speculation, though, I don't hide this fact. bjolly wrote: Would you be willing to expand on this? Please, look at it this way: you can believe in Atheism and risk accepting a death by illusion or you can, with God, try to perceive an after-life that may present a Pandora box to you. In a sense, by Atheism, you accept a kind of "Pessimism" that hasn't been proven yet. This may have consequences in your life when you make certain choices. The whole existence may be very nice with God, yet one often denies such because of "abstract nature". I just find Atheism very "pessimistic". bjolly wrote: ...efficient cause... I find nothing that definitely refutes that a grand idea of infinite God should be unable to create Universe(s). Why should this be impossible? I mean, an aspect of Cosmology suggests that our universe is just one dimension from other universes. Why can't God have a similar nature? Why should it be that this entity can't have a mechanism that effectuates Universe(s)? The incoherency of this denial is on the side of the Atheist. bjolly wrote: But since you're saying that the conscience is a real thing, which we all genuinely experience, then why the argument that morality supports the contention that god exists? I think that this deserves an explanation, as it originally appeared to be presented as evidence for god's existence? Is this the case? If so, how so? If it's not meant as proof, then what's the relevance in the intended context? This is something in line with meaning. Perhaps, we as humanity have all these possibilities because the Universe is "built" in this special way. In carrying out our special nature of intelligence, our status gives us the notion that each of us means something special in a moral view especially the evil way if we are unjustly destroyed/killed. The qualification of getting infinitely rewarded when doing the right moral acts reinforces this sense of Morality/Ethics in the Religious sense. bjolly wrote: It's also important to note when you brought the term into the conversation, as your original arguments made no such distinction. I've brought in theoretical after you've brought in practical. These are philosophical/theoretical views. I fail to see how I can point out the ontological status of meaning and morality in practice? How am I supposed to do that? I also sense that you wish to imply that my Religious view is based on psychological disposition, which is totally wrong! jorndoe wrote: ...this is incoherent. Can you explain, please? How is it incoherent to suggest that God is the cause of our Universe? I think you put a number of assumptions behind your claim of this incoherency that I don't support. F.x. if God is immaterial then God can't create an actual Universe of matter and energy. This is good, but I'd claim that God's being is real/consists of a kind of matter/energy, but being outside of our universe or being attached to it in a special way. jorndoe wrote: In short, anything goes? The usual slippery slope? You should take note of the fact that the concept of God plays a very different role, ontologically, than all or most of the faerie stories, of Santa Claus, of your idle speculation and your fantasies by the role God plays in being an extraordinary cause of the whole of existence, particularly intelligence. The particular role is easily defeated in other speculations/fantasies/Santa Claus and what have you. Clear?
You may want to check out the thread: Comment on Companions in Guilt - Arguments for Ethical Objectivity - By Hallvard Lillehammer here - http://forums.philosophyforums.com...anions-in-guilt-37784.html. This is based on "From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423. It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions." (I've bought both of them.)
Yes, the power of example is very good. You can also wrap your good wishes and advice in jokes and playful tones. I very much understand your sentiment/care for your brother. See if you can put in your advice more "fluently". I don't think it's very useful to press the emotional buttons, you just end up quarrelling! Give the advice when they are wanted! Good Luck in being the "supporting rail" of your brother.
I can say that one can do a lot to improve one's looks - weightlifting, running, staying fit, personal grooming... People who exercise do have a fine glow to them... I think that being physically attractive also implies good intelligence in most cases, yet the most beautiful people sometimes seem to waste their good quality of looks by not following up with good working discipline... Sure, I find, too, that people prefer to mate with/have sex with the Physically Attractive! Good health?!
I'm not arguing in the sense of Argument From Ignorance because I don't claim any proof of God. My claim of God is contentious, not certain. Otherwise, look to the notion of meaning mentioned earlier. "Do you find it practical, or necessary?" Neither, I find it possible (in the face of the absurd)! "Are we, and why?" Not knowing... The importance (or not) of this... "I had trouble understanding it." -> "bjolly, I suggest God is outside every causality..."
Soylent, "By good do you mean valid, sound or both?" Given certain premises, I say both! bjolly, this is just like logics which is theoretical. You can't jump from a theoretically convincing argument to simply say they then are based on the practical. Logics has good practical appliance too, but that doesn't make logics practical in considering logics. It's necessarily theoretical! Besides, a practical appeal imply wavering (and not necessity or any good modality foundation) and this is not the case here! If your education is theoretical, then it's based on the practical? I think you're confused of the concept of theoretical. bjolly, to suggest "demonisation" is the actual failure to spread the message of God's miracle. There's no foundation for such a claim, inherently. bjolly, morality implies conscience, not the other way around. To have conscience makes for good considerations, but not for (deliberate) failure (of compliance) to such. bjolly, I suggest God is outside every causality argument, not being subject to that notion just like the notion of time. That is, God can create and is part of the causality of universe, but the being of God itself is outside of it. The classic Atheist trap: meaninglessness is supposed to represent meaning! This is absurd! What choice, really, does one have, but to choose the meaningful? Absurdity or possible illusion, tough choice! I only need to point to the possibility of God. There's certainly no absolute truth being argued here for the existence of God. I have indeed mentioned "leap of faith", yes? This possibility of God arises from (partly?) this "foundation" of questions that beg for the appropriate prediction (of God, or in your case(es) the absence or falsity of such). Still, we're forced to be staring into the mysteries and make those unfounded beliefs, not knowing what's on the other side. We're subject to leaps of faith, the lot of us!
It strikes me as possible to argue that if all is to be good we would already be united with God in "Heaven", but life as it is, is to be in the fray, experience and be victorious (by God's miracle) or lose (fail to take part in God's perfection) to "evil". So, "evil" is more the necessary test of time in the tension of God and "the outside". Therefore, to be with God or make such an aim is to be guaranteed the absence of "evil" after death. Good luck with the debate!
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on George Orwell: 1984, reinforcing paranoia rather than constructive approaches. I'd recommend very much the two tomes of Curd and Cover: Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues and Roger Penrose: The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. I find your listing of Gilbert Harman & Judith Jarvis Thomson: Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity very nice! It's one that I've failed to come across earlier. In this regard of ethics, I've recently bought Paul Bloomfield: Moral Reality and Hallvard Lillehammer: Companions in Guilt - Arguments for Ethical Objectivity. Also, if your enterprise is the whole of Philosophy, it's always nice to buy a good introduction to the various (7) disciplines. I guess you have this one under control.
I'm not sure if social mobility is necessary or desirable if the intellectual needs of everyone are taken care of. It seems that some people are subjected to only be working, others to only be reporting and yet others to be only thinking. It has been mentioned that some ideal society should allow everyone to take part in all aspects of life, not specialising into special modes of general living. So, if everyone knows their opportunities in life will emerge more or less predictably according to a common "justice" that's acknowledged and accepted, I think people will feel life being easier on them. Perhaps the future will prove this non-specialised presumably good society.
I don't need to describe what God is, but there are good logical grounds for assuming a God entity of perfection. The foundation for making this entity rise from this void has been mentioned. By this "answer/leap of faith" I sense a stronger grounding than having the prospect of reclining my "soul" and corpse with the soil. F.x. I'd say meaninglessness is "hell" or very undesired. Clearly, jorndoe, I share your view of facts (and probably the whole scientific picture), but not your shortcomings in (Anti-) Religious matters. The foundation I've given drives me to this "obscure"/"vague"/"mystical"/"fantastic" concept of God. I believe this is like predicting that particle (can't remember the name) in physics. There should be something there, I just can't say or describe exactly what it is. I don't subscribe to Creationism in the way it has been defined which is just bullocks, but I'm open for a different kind of "Creationism" behind this Big-Bang. Also, it's pretty clear that there are quite many anomalies in science today despite science being "progressive" or whatever.
By Arkady, jsidelko and myself: NO! [Edit:] I also like to add this from Wikip.: "Smolin's thesis found support in one corner. In the same year as that in which The Trouble with Physics was published, Peter Woit also published a book for nonspecialists, whose conclusion was similar to Smolin's, namely that string theory was a fundamentally flawed research program. * Woit, Peter, 2006. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory & the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics. ISBN 0-224-07605-1 (Jonathan Cape), ISBN 0-465-09275-6 (Basic Books)
By bjolly's request: jorndoe wrote: Otherwise you're arguing from ignorance, which does not obtain rationally. I don't think my/Deistic reasoning is of any ignorance at all. I wonder about all the options and God-belief comes out as the best and this is certainly not ignorance. I'm not willing to let go of or miss a single truth and God-belief meets this demand in the absence of anything else. QED? To bjolly, I can't see how the pondering of the serious ontological status of meaning and moral is "practical" at all, but theoretical. This strikes me as funny. Also, the causality presupposes a beginning of the Universe and not necessarily the infinity of God/God making God in connection with the Universe. I'm not suggesting that moral is exclusive to Religious people, but I do think Religious people view moral in a deeper ontological sense and plausibly/necessarily so.
jorndoe wrote: What "anomalies" are you referring to? The usual ones. Existence, emergence of life and consciousness, the true nature of all things, the rather strange nature of Pre-Big-Bang and it's reason for being just like that, the infinite expansion of universe. jorndoe wrote: The usual anthropomorphization, reification, and unwarranted predicate ontologization? The usual complaints that non/a-theists are basically immoral (because they have to think for themselves, without falling back on fear/hope of eternal punishment/bliss)? Unless you have something new to add? This doesn't address meaning! As for the morals, considering this issue may be more real, but this has already been discussed elsewhere. "...unwarranted..." is your word, not mine! That's it, rather quickly dealt with.
I've posted this on the PN forum: "Name a rational factor." by i_blame_blame "The fact that there are [(most certainly/probably)] truths outside of our current sphere of knowledge is one rational reason to believe in God. Another: the anomalies of science suggest a fantastic explanation to all of these. Another: a serious ontological consideration of meaning. Another: a serious consideration of ontological morals of Good and Evil. Are you satisfied?" by me! Now you can bang your heads against this as well.
"The Fallibility of Knowledge" seems to be a contradiction. Knowledge in everyday use is just referring to science of today and isn't really knowledge in the true sense except, possibly, for a few cases. This however doesn't make Epistemology a futile enterprise. "Conceptual domain" or "descriptive domain" solve many of the worries of the Skeptic, if only in the mundane sense of very apparent notions, like those of social truths and of all artifacts/products (by humans).
I'd say the core of "Deep" Ecology is really to reduce, reduce, reduce, reduce the world population to half of the 2005 numbers in a venture of about 200 years by naturally (use of contraceptives and all that) choosing to have fewer babies! It's bloody irritating that even the environmental organisations seem to avoid this issue! Why is that? Instead of "Global Warming", Greenpeace could have chosen "Reduce World Population!" as its banner! Morons, get a grip, realise! So the combination of 3 Billion people on planet earth and environmental science and technology makes tomorrow a brighter day! Cheers! Some slogans to start with: "Half the population of every nation now!" "Kids: one or two!"
I add to Arkady by referring to Lee Smolin on BBC Hardtalk where he thinks that every scientific theory needs to be empirically based and as such, up to this point, String theory has come short along with everything else of Unified theory of Physics. I can recommend his (LS) book, The Trouble With Physics from Penguin/Allen Lane.
jsidelko You seem to argue for an unexpressed private language in people, but the fact is that private language doesn't include unexpressed language, eg thought language, at least not in the Wittgenstein sense. Are you saying that people exchange some expressions and hold others back? You know, if something is expressible in one person then it's expressible in all persons, ie the potential of expression is the same with all intelligent people. You have shown in your example of the last tribe member that it's not impossible to have a private language, but in the usual instances, I think Wittgenstein's argument works beautifully and that it's practically impossible to defeat in these matters. I suggest Wittgenstein is wholly non-dogmatic, it's just that his (astonishingly intelligent) work is so definitive in virtue of itself. He's truly a teaching example for all!
Ozeu wrote: Any way, good luck. Thanks a lot! I'll see what I can do, but I must say, at the point where I'm now, I'm relatively satisfied with combining Plotinus and Thomas Aquinas and some small rants and ravings. Btw, I usually call Scientology my religious home! When then time is right and I have some more to add, I'll try to keep you informed!
Thanks for backing up my memory of that 4th dimension, KK! Others who like to add something? Here are some useful links to the topics of Five-dimensional space and Unified field theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory The 4th space dimension seems now to me to be a technicality of Unified Physics Theory that's likely to be beyond me forever, I think. It does seem to require a major effort that I don't see any possibility of coming through with from my point of view. My interest lies primarily with Philosophy, esp. Philosophy of Science and all the case studies of Historiography of Science in my version of Cumulativism. It's all open for you on the other hand!
Ozeu wrote: Merely saying that God is a perfect being does not get you there. I think it takes me quite some way. Not only does the sense of perfection make Honour (and morality) meaningful, but also looking at it cognitively the other way, removes the blind God-faith. I've looked at the argument from Plotinus and I've made an own version of it (Solution to the Problem of Evil) that I find to be a strong angle combined with Thomism (five ways, possibly modernised) to achieve my, hopefully the most sensible description, of a Deity, God. Thanks for mentioning the two books. I'll possibly get back to them, but for the moment the Metaphysics of God or some deeper writing of Philosophy of Religion isn't on my priority list for the moment. The primary reason of mine in this thread has been to state the biconditional relationship of Honour and God, removing the classically "stupid" view of some kind of Deism if not JCI in some interpretations.
Ozeu The relation between (the natural, deistic) God and Honour is biconditional. If it's honourable then it's from God and if it's from God then it's honourable! I don't want to take part in the lousily documented Biblical stuff, man, Moses may have had a schizophrenic moment for all I know! Is this good, makes sense?
In the example of the last surviving member of tribe (jsidelko), that member is short of communicating in that language (hence perhaps Private Language), but as this member learns another language, isn't there also created a key to this supposed Private Language (PL) and how is this PL supposed to be maintained if it isn't practiced? What makes this language stay in memory? What use does this PL have besides working as code? The final logical point against PL is that why would you need/use a PL if they're only your own thoughts? Isn't this to take detours? Even for archiving reasons, one can also keep writings in secret if not in PL. What's remarkable about this situation, I agree, is that this PL, in theory, may work for a while, but I suspect it will die eventually. There's certainly a theoretical victory point/victory here. Congratulations! smiling face Another example for it as practice: This tribe member can decide to write the personal diary in this PL and at the end of this tribe member's life, reveals this PL by creating a translation, we can then definitely say that this tribe member's PL has had a function if it's possible to keep a PL for that long in memory by only practicing it oneself. As for the "I love you more than words can say", one can always nominate new terms for it, perhaps Hans Reichenbach in creating a special sign for an indexical (Θ). Or simply say "my inexpressible feeling/emotion/sentiment of love for you" which isn't essentially more than the original sentence, still I think the sentence carries an impression everyone can make sense of and use, as such there's no problem with it, I think.
The principle of blacksmithing hasn't gone away as far as I know. You're right, though, automobiles are produced differently now than before, but custom parts... eh.. process may look almost the same in the basics... I'll give one: fission power. And more... Magnetism, electricity, gravity, light, mundane stuff like the natural things like trees, and whole lot really. I think "descriptive domain" remains the same unless there's something significant to add to by changing it.
I think there's logic in this: if you have a mind or a mind ascribed to you, then it's logical that also your parents have minds and as much as your parents have minds, other people have minds too, being similar to your parents. You can always be skeptical and doubt it, but that's up to you. Perhaps one should look into the etymology of "mind". I mean there are some people today who see no use in the concept of "mind" despite wearing 21st century science! If not "minds" by Behaviourism then at least "minds" by Cognitive Science and self-reports! Banno, I can be in my room and contemplate my self without using a single word in saying or writing. The thoughts of it are in my head!
In the realist sense, "unobservables" are negotiated by indirect observation or instrumental observation. Perhaps it can be useful to separate: * Laws of nature * Theories * Expressions in Probabilities
The honour and God is always consistent in my view! If it's not honourable, it excludes God. They are not opposites. God is supposed to be perfect and therefore his way is always perfection. Honour has to be honour, always, if one is to rise to the qualification given by (the perfect) God. The questions of Honour and God are complex, but I'd say they always go together! [Edit:] Honour ≡ God
Your three-part problem is posed in a demand for real answers. As these questions are classically hard to answer in that same sense, that is, for real, I expect this thread to get to 20 pages. 1. If the agent causation isn't caused by the agent, then it's determinism? 2. How can an agent cause something by blindly bumping into things or conduct activities by the reflexes? 3. Who are we really? Are we from God, small God-creatures? How does this consciousness operate really? Ahh.. tough! One thought I've had in favour of agent causation is that I think evolution is better off with rewarding the best decisions and best work and "properties" like good looks from having good parents. So, (1) if we have an impression that it's up to us, then we put in the effort. (2) If we don't have this impression, we just go with the flow. I'd say clearly that (1) is best and that Agent Causation wins! So short! You can probably go on and on with this issue, but I've decided to not spend any much time on it.
I think it's reasonable to say that Agent causation is the choice between options where this Agent's well-being isn't threatened. I think it's wrong to say that thinking and acting are voluntary in the same respects. Also, thinking itself consists of both the intuitive (involuntary) and the deliberate (voluntary). Agent causation originates in/with the consciousness in the way described. Is this any good?
It's strange to notice that people are so hooked up on having a single time-reference. If there are several universes, each of these must have its own time-reference. This should be quite clear. Now, if there's this entity popping out universes and has a consistent eternal nature, why can't it be timeless? We have only our own lives to refer to in relation to time so "timeless" is obviously speculative. I've noted this point in 180Proof's thread of Kalam/Cosmological argument or so...
There's no further need to "see" than my post #26. There's nobody who accepts a master/slave relation in a modern society and I also think it's forbidden by law. The "master/slave relation" necessarily involves (unlawful) exploitation.
If you build up successful concepts that allow you to work on the next level, you have Truth at that level. (This is in support of To Mega Therion.) Surely, when we achieve Flight back then, we must know (the Truth) about something in a useful way. I'd say the pure performance of insights separates the ridiculous skepticism from the constructive realist. My prediction is that we'll never change the notion of "chair" or "plane" because they're conceptually True!
Is Barack Obama from a well-to-do family? I remember his and his wife's accounts of driving around in a car there's hole in so that one could look straight through it to the street. That's NOT well to do! I have sympathy with your concerns of providing all people with a striking chance at achieving great wealth and at least decent living based on standard 37,5 hrs working week! This is something I share along with your "lofty" ideas! Apart from this, the decent living, I can't see that there's a slavery relationship to speak of at all. The problems (deep) of having a great deal of poor people living in non-acceptable conditions have to be solved and that this poverty is outside of the normative view of speaking of slavery as it's not condoned.
There has been this survey on examinations of business students from Harvard(?) on whether they would like an increase in wage comparatively to their students or absolutely. I can't remember the details in this, but the students answered they'd like an increase relatively to their fellow students. However, I find this pessimistic. In a sense they say that in keeping others down, one is keeping oneself up and I find this contradictory to the general enterprise of business. One should remember also that business in the modern world is conducted along the lines of certain duties to health, environment and safety, not to speak of the labour unions which probably do a fine job. So, I'm with ben_tam64 on this, generally. The slavery is per definition abolished! And the minimum wage is there for good reasons. Although, I think USA is too lax on the matter. USA seems to compel citizens to work in order, partly, to avoid the social abyss. So, NO, "those who have less money are NOT slaves to the rich in our supposed..."! Being with less money is the result of a number of factors given of the environment, your will to work and your talent incl. ideas for novel enterprises/improving existing ones. I strongly believe in "there are NO slaves"! If there are, some people should go to jail for arranging this. Perhaps, you other people have better links regarding this survey conducted some time ago...
Without having read the thread and just inserting my own opinion, I can't see the reality of all supposed Gods, but being facets of one common, logical explanation that will last for as long as necessary. I believe, insofar they believe in a kind of God, necessarily, if one is to take their conviction for real, is the belief in this one God, the natural God. Just see it as hypotheses of thinking/intuition/deduction/inference/induction it's hard to get answers on! Good luck with your God!
I think if you're this philosopher in the beginning of making a name for yourself, it should be alright to use one's real name as one is going to promote one's work either way. I think this depends on the level of seriousness. As for authorship to one's own words, I can't see it's supposed to be taken away for you! Are you not authoring/writing words? Clearly, I think one has every right to use one's own words in whatever way one desires!
"...appropriate rule..." A rule may be set up to count people passing through a street. So I make the further distinction of what a rule may be: "counting things naively" or applying a successful law of nature. You can consider it: "...just offering a related comment." But also, I don't disagree with what you've said, just that this may mean or imply different things in nature of just these things. A little bit...
brainpharte wrote: ...You seem to be entirely oblivious of the fact that in order to generate 11 945 you accurately selected and applied a particular well-learned rule that in your judgment was the appropriate rule to generate the next integer in a series... There is a difference in counting things naively (inductive inference) and assuming the next integer in a lawful relationship insofar as it is given in your set of observations and that the law of nature is deduced correctly, I think. In essence, this is "laws of nature exist".
jorndoe wrote: So, you admit the possibility of religious beliefs being inaccurate (or even plain false), and yet such beliefs are appropriate as a basis for ethics in general? Yes! There may in fact be no God or any such, but I believe Religious people follow deep intuitions in their belief as well as the inability of science to answer many questions and to have credible meaning in their lives. Where does that leave an active, non-arbitrary consideration of a situation (which includes respect, empathy/compassion, conscience, social sustainability, etc), as opposed to justifying actions by referring to an old (inconsistent, ambiguous) book? I see no necessary contradiction of "active, non-arbitrary consideration of a situation (which includes respect, empathy/compassion, conscience, social sustainability, etc)" to Religious belief. This "old (inconsistent, ambiguous) book" is outdated, but this doesn't prevent one to keep the Holiness/Holy objects. These "undecidables (as well as the negation of these)" are not necessarily "undecidables" in the future! History have already taught us that there is no basis for assuming correlation between moral behaviour and religious beliefs. I contend this. I believe there is need for more and accurate studies in this field. I am suggesting that people choose Religiousness (whatever they like) for the benefits, even Agnosticism may be somewhat good. With dear Milton, I can't understand how he can write this with certainty!
As such, feelings/emotions are a part of the sense apparatus, not only this, but also from the brain, reflects the persistent strains of that consciousness, I think. Perhaps it's worthwhile in this thread to separate emotion, sentiment and feeling. Feeling being the pure electrical signal in the nerves, sentiment being a psychological inclination of having a positive or negative attitude to something, emotion can be the mix of these two. At one time, I've been drooling over: Philosophy of Emotion that should probably give everyone a fine start on the subject!
I believe that if emotions are perceived correctly, they can indeed represent the subsumed rationality. Shedding tears in respect or in facing greater responsibiliy and challenges due to the loss of this loved one. If you had no favourable propositions in your head of this person, there would be no loss. How this "porting" of the consciousness to emotions and back go, I can't say, but I don't deny the possibility that there's perfection behind it. So, I'm with Yahadreas and possibly beyond.
Then I'd like you to demonstrate how it can be meaningful to believe in God without a moral code! What you assert by "The two things 1)belief in God 2)a moral code, are seperate." just seem impossible to me. With God comes Heaven and Hell and the duties. How can you believe in something perfect, yet fail to see any qualification on living up to this perfection? That the 2 things are separate issues simply isn't true! Name one major Religion where this is the case! Such a Religion doesn't exist! However, if they truly are, you're right, my argument fails, but then again if this is case, this thread wouldn't have been initiated! The accusation of Dawkins' "hidden story" wouldn't be made. Belief in God does by necessity require one to accept an ethical standard.
I've been thinking it might be worthwhile to suggest angles for sociological examinations of Atheists and Religious to know if there are typical traits of their lives that separates the two. There are so many facets of life that it can be interesting in order to exhaust most of them, we can discuss possibilities here: 1. there are I.Q. investigations, religious (R) being a little lower than atheists (A). 2. various I can suggest an investigation of former prison inmates and current prison inmates and get to know their life-orientation. I can mention another one: giving money to charity! Another one: A/R democrat or GOP! Supporting Research and development! Graduating from college/university! Grade achieved? Bachelor/Master/PhD
The OP reminds me of boxes! I'd say both, the inside and outside, the limits and limitless, the universal and the particular, the laws and the inductive, blue and red! Then there's progress!
Can I recommend: Friend and Foe philosophers - http://forums.philosophyforums.com...hical-positions-35748.html Philosophical Positions - http://forums.philosophyforums.com...hical-positions-35748.html Favourite Philosophers - http://forums.philosophyforums.com...te-philosophers-38021.html For the time being, the philosopher who is looking over my shoulder is Rudolf Carnap!
...(or a larger theory that would accomodate both)... If I may say, how in the world is one supposed to explain Newton's and Einstein's in a larger theory? Even a "translation tool"/"larger theory" between two theories in fact mean they're commensurable. There's no way two incommensurable theories can go together by their respective meanings. Alright, you can use Newton's for some or most calculations and Einstein's for this and that, but in no way does it mean anymore than the purely calculable. If you take one theory from Biology and one theory from Chemistry, they may be commensurable, exactly by this "larger theory". Small points, but...
Objective moral and universal moral are not contradictive, quite the opposite!
"Sense" can mean whatever foundation you like the morals to have, but it's implicitly not going to pass criteria of objectivity and
universality if it's not rational, reasonable, cognitive.
You ask of "universal principle" and I say that is our ability to understand and recognise that there are right and wrong actions that are placed in
these domains of ethics and morals. Is it hard to understand? We use the language to conceptualise these things relatively to reality as I've already
written. This is the last I have to say on this.
Here is one of unhappiness:
Farber's Theory of Suicide S = f ( PIC.DEC.DIG.TS / Su.HFT ) where the key is ( / = dividend as on the calculator)
S = Probability of Suicide
PIC = Frequency of Production of Personalities Injured in Their Sense of Competence
DEC = Demands for the Exercising of Competence
DIG = Demands for Interpersonal Giving
TS = Tolerance of Suicide
Su = Availability of Succorance
HFT = Degree of Hope in the Future Time Perspective of the Society
Source: Issue nr. 20 of Philosophy Now
The reason for posting this is that if you know the dark side, you may get a sound idea of the bright side.
From the perspective of a scientific deist: Furor wrote: 1) What need does a creator deity have for human worship? There shouldn't be any. There's a necessary return of its matter. Maybe if God puts several universes into play, God can compare the development of them and the creatures they create. It can also be refreshing to see the return of the various forms of matter into God's body, I speculate. As God plays out God's own nature, I guess it's like ripping a kidney out of your body and seeing how it replaces itself again. Furor wrote: 2) What need has such a being for a proxy agent such as a prophet? A prophet may not be any more than another human being or a great scientist. The God-view should fall into place eventually in due course. Furor wrote: 3) Why would such a being not make its message universally comprehensible? I take it to be universally comprehensible. You don't even need to believe in God to end up there. The cognition of it should at least strike some time in the after-life. Furor wrote: 4) Why would any such being require specific doctrinal beleif? There's no doctrinal belief in this. Furor wrote: 5) Why would such a being have a will or plan for mankind? Of what particular importance would one species be above another to such a being? There's no particular plan for humankind, only the possibility of rationality. I believe that species are only judged by their level of rationality. I can't believe God has a preferance for one species over another. The degree of rationality gives the strength of relationship to God. Furor wrote: 6) Why would such a being feel it necessary to engage humans in theodicy? The theodicy is the work of rational beings and serves only to indicate direction. This indication may not be necessary in that it only takes the continued effort to reach God no matter what. Furor wrote: 7) Is it truly free will when one is herded into complying with scriptural, doctrinal guidance of action with the spectres of death and subsequent damnation for non-compliance? I'm uncertain about the issue of free will. Compatibilism, anyone? I don't think there's damnation. You set the course to your own mind yourself. Furor wrote: 8) Does denying the wishes of a prophet or messenger of god to abstain from idolatry or worship of another human not invalidate those proclaiming adherence? Rationality may have many faces so no. Furor wrote: 9) Why have religious institutions denied membership despite espousing universal love of mankind? This seems strange to me as well. Some people display unacceptable behaviour? Furor wrote: 10) If there exists a nemesis or counter to the deity in question, could not the counter be the entity requiring worship when the true creator deity requires no such thing?
I believe that this counter is nothing and it's not possible to worship nothing.
I think the best way is to make a demand in the political system that homeless people should have a decent offer of a place to stay whether it's sleeping halls or something else. Obviously, I sympathise with the political systems that have this in place. Basically, I find the requirement of minimum wage and the guarantee to have a place to stay very compatible and useful. Perhaps one can avoid crime to some degree if homeless people are not required to live like animals. Also, perhaps people get more calm when this abyss of atrocity is closed.
If one gets access to infinity by future-science, it should also become clear what the fundamental reason for our presence is. Thereby, the question why we exist, is relieved and no longer is needed to be asked. Likewise, if we get to decide by future-science what consciousness stems from and how life comes into being, religion is so utterly reduced to insignificance that there is no need for it. All the fundamental questions will have been answered by future-science. So therefore, the conclusion has to be that the question of demarcation against religion may only be a question of what one ascribes to the capacity of future-science. As one can assert this belief, even only hypothetically, it shows that the demarcation issue against religion is indeed impossible. There you have it! There is no wonder why it has been so bloody hard to make the demarcation against religion.
I think the Globalization of trade is definitely good! Thanks to globalization, we can get a very good understanding of other people and their situation. Eventually, the inherent sympathy to others will lead to a world of equality and respect. I also think it will prevent wars between trading nations. Two negative examples of nations not being well enough embedded in globalization of trade, are Afghanistan and Pakistan. One looks to those places and one finds extreme Islamism of people willing to commit suicide to cause chaos and disruption, seemingly against infidels. So we should work to get those countries into the fold as well, perhaps beginning with cooperation within the education sector.
jsawvel wrote: So, how can you deconstruct your identity and adopt a new one? This is impossible for me. I'm already fully myself. Do you mean that people should incorporate "the darker side" of themselves if such a thing exists? I imagine that it might be fun to work out a way to identify your own perception of yourself by fMRI or MR.
J. Random Hacker wrote: Here's a list of religions based on size. Please pick out the ones that don't believe in the supernatural. ... Scientology: 500 thousand Scientologists believe in the union of the mind and body they call Thetan, maybe some call it Soul. Scientologists believe in the infinity dynamic, 8. dynamic, maybe some call it God. Scientologists believe in engrams, unconscious restraints on your abilities, maybe some call them slightly unfounded or unscientific, at least today. What is there exactly that is supernatural in Scientology? I can't find anything there! Please, make sure you get the reference to the book right!
TMB wrote: Are you suggesting that SM should be done away with and when Socrates was debating someones proposition he should have just given his own point of view on what he thought the answer was, rather than pick away at the holes in the others proposition? If so, surely he would have to know the answer upfront and also know exactly what the other was driving at. Socrates professed to know nothing, except his own ignorance, so this would have been a stretch. If Socrates is such a genious, why can't he come up with a great suggestion to a problem? He doesn't have any and his very skeptical attitude makes him impotent. You know, this "Socrates professed to know nothing", don't you know about your neighbour, the ceramic jugs, the boats, the crops, the houses, your son's birthday and a lot of other propositions? I think it's rubbish.
Comparing Democritus', Leucippus' suggestion of the atom and Socrates' ignorance, I find it striking that there are significant differences in beautiful thinking and non-effective thinking represented respectively.
If you sense the macro-effect of substance, is it not reasonable to say substance definitely exists? If you deny this, it seems to me you are in the same group of people who deny it's impossible to know any true proposition whether social in nature, human-made artifacts or whatever else.
Nice post, Incision, but... "(n + 2) Possibly necessarily no necessary being exists. (Obvious truth)" - As we exist in reality in the first place, is it not reasonable to say that something necessarily makes out the foundation of this reality?
TMB wrote: What do you mean by negative? When a suggestion is given, it's shown to be false. There are no descriptions that suffice in the Socratic dialogues as it ends it with resignation and hopelessness. TMB wrote: That the person with the proposition had his argument colllapse and expose his ignorance; that nothing further was illuminated about the topic by approaching it this way; something else? Something like that, yes. Socratic dialogues: I sense a mediocre attempt to give a valuable solution to a problem and then the ignorance emerges. Very good, eh.., not! TMB wrote: I do not understand your response. Are you saying that if SM is used to try and validate a proposition, that the response should always be straight and sound? I am pretty sure that the process of SM does start like that, but further questioning on matters philosophical probably opens up many unanswered questions that sooner or later lead to the propositions undoing Just focus the efforts to express the best possible explanation you can think of and forget about the SM! Is it clear?
I have doubts about this. I think there is a place that says that this is unscientific, but so be it. I have the results from http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html. I have chosen the "Jung Tests I-E S-N F-T J-P**" and "Short test, 53 questions". I have fallen into: INTJ - "Mastermind". Introverted intellectual with a preference for finding certainty. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 2.1% of total population. This is just in case I'm not lying. He-he-he-ho-ho, you will never know!
I'm looking for something between the introduction (on university level, of course) and the more advanced courses. It's not enough with giving 20 pages on time, 20 pages on causation, 20 pages on substance and so on.
I think I'll go for: Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings (Routledge Contemporary Readings in Philosophy) (Paperback), 544 pages, 2001, edited Michael Loux. I have gotten this urge to read Rudolf Carnap, but the article that is cited in the Forums is not in it. I'll get it somewhere else.
Hurray! Luckily it turns out that there is Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings (Routledge Contemporary Readings in Philosophy) (Paperback), 2. ed., 664 pages, 2008, edited Michael Loux. It is now in the box!
xzJoel wrote: 2) Why is any proof required to understand that our language bears no fundamental relationship to its object such that a sentence has no truth value of its own? In other words, doesn't the idea "x corresponds to the fact that p" immediately lend itself to the criticism that you can't know that x has any correspondence to p? Language has evolved with people in relation to their perception of reality for the most parts. There may be innovations that don't reflect reality in any way. As the language has become extensive, there may be bits and parts there implied by it that have remained overlooked that may contribute to our understanding of nature. Mostly, I hold that language is language and that there is nothing in it that will solve any problem outside of language itself. Even then, it remains a large sheet of a grid of calculations of possibilities from the nature we want to describe in the first place. I have said there may be something, some relations that are overlooked.
When one states that God is the universe, one is implying that the universe has a quality outside the natural sciences. Heck, one is even saying that the universe has an eternity to it that gives meaning in various ways. The relationship indicated is always outside the sciences and though one may include the sciences as qualities for one's religion, the opposite is not true. In a religious context, "God is the universe" is always significant. I think the sentence also says that God is not transcendent which is a considerable claim.
There is no speech-act in a scientific paper. Just in case you say there is, this speech-act has no context outside the scientific paper. Therefore, there really is no impact of Austin in the scientific paper that yield any worth to Austin's theory and the semantics is thereby seized wholly, again, by the classical theory of meaning, nullifying Austin. Is this nothing? I guess some people like to protest to what I'm saying and I'm interested in exactly what this is. Can I also return the question? Why is there no problem? Have I missed something that makes me think I have a point?
patito de hule wrote: "Do we have reason to believe that we would ever be able to communicate with them (in our language or theirs) even if we can vocally reproduce their sounds and they can reproduce ours." Given that it seems there is an inherent capacity to form languages to cope more efficiently in the environment, it should not pose a bigger problem to apply such a universal capacity in exchange of languages or the formation of a new, common one. We should include sign-languages in this regard. So, it may boil down to pointing limbs and drawing in the sand.
It seems to me that while the power of Frege's On Sense and Nominatum and Grice's Meaning is well retained in the context of scientific papers, this is not the case with the argument of J. L. Austin when he launches the attack on classical meaning theory by Performative Utterances. The power of pragmatics just dwindle to virtually nothing if you are to consider it in relation to scientific papers. Scientific papers are usually exhaustive in all sorts of manners and I find this is particular true in contexts, ie. outside factors that may play a role in the experiment. This is just a first thought and I'm wondering what you think? If one is scientific in one's approach to daily communication, is it possible to clear most misunderstandings?
I'd say you're very much on it. I think there is no significance with God before the creation and with the creation. God just stays the same, God has lied down and lies there. It's a dormant entity. It has no problems to solve because everything is taken care of by the various functions of nature. We are living a journey in God's body, so to speak. On some level, we'll return to God. Maybe God and Heaven are the same? There is no difference in God's being and Heaven. Alright!
Well, it turns out we disagree deeply here, I think. Good luck with your theory! I don't know if there is any use for having me posting anymore in this thread. If I do, I'll promise I'll stick to cognition.
Alright, et cetera, formally I realise you are correct and you point out one essential problem in the Philosophy of Science which is good. I think Donald Gillies speaks about parsimony. I don't know if you're familiar with him. Let me try with this: all of a sudden I also get a "metaphysical" hunch. I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is involved in the making of DNA. We then have: T1) DNA -> O T2) DNA & God -> O (your God) T3) DNA & FSM -> O (my God) By agreement to further research in the name of science and avoid quarrelling and possibly also the indecision-problem, we, the both of us, go with only T1. You can't find FSM and I can't find God. I think this may pose a solution to the problem you draw which is really a classic. The literature mentions other solutions. I look forward to your reply.
So you actually contend the following: the cause is "self" and its effect is "thinking". In your words, the thinking is the self. I'd say that is bold, indeed. Let me think some more! However, nice going! Also, can't you write a longer article so that your point is more obvious, perhaps explicating words here and there.
jorndoe wrote: So, by "this existence" you mean "thoughts", no? No, I don't. By "this existence", I mean whatever it is that generates the mind and the consciousness. I don't really have to explain exactly what I mean since the effect is the human being even in the physicalistic sense. To be honest, I connect this "lowest" reality to God through the soul, directly, but I don't think it's the issue here. You may be able to generate a more complete picture from what I've written in the other threads.
Sometimes, I.D. sounds like bad emergentism. I mean I.D. is flawed. Although you can make the theory beautiful in your mind, the actual theory is badly camouflaged religion. Get it out of schools, USA! I have become outraged by the notion of I.D. since I have investigated it some time ago. "Rubbish" is the only word I have for it. I may commend Christians for leaving the Creationism far behind and replacing it with I.D., but there is still some realisation to take effect. Rather orthodox people clinging to insane ideas is the expression of I.D. Final!
I like this question. As above, I don't know if we can define a strict philosophical method, but I do believe there are certain general methods. One might be seen as directly parallel to the version of the scientific method you give: 1. Define the question. 2. Gather information and resources (do a literature search). 3. Form a plausible and defensible hypothesis. 4. Design arguments and thought experiments to defend the hypothesis. 5. Analyze the arguments and draw conclusions – has the hypothesis been demonstrated, or at least defended against possible objections? 6. Optionally, go back to step 3. 7. Publish results and conclusions. 8. Reformulate in light of responses (frequently done by other philosophers). While the above method has the virtue of being parallel to the given version of the scientific method, it does not satisfy me. I can't say that I've spent a great deal of time formulating a superior philosophical method, but as a first attempt I would perhaps suggest the following variation: 1. Pose a question. 2. Refine the question into something explainable and conceivably answerable. 3. Gather information and resources (do a literature search). 4. Consider the logical space (that is, the space of possible answers). 5. Examine arguments for and against the various possible answers. 6. Design arguments and thought experiments for and against the various possible answers. 7. Analyze the results of these arguments: Which possible answers have been shown to be untenable? What do the various answers entail, or what are they entailed by? How does this affect the reasonableness of any given possible answer? 8. Form an opinion. 9. Publish results and conclusions. 10. Reformulate or abandon as necessary in light of responses. One of the key differences between the first and second philosophical methods is when one forms an opinion. It is my own belief that far too many people have opinions first and look into philosophical justifications for them afterward, rather than examining the whole of a logical space and following the arguments where they go. No doubt I succumb to this temptation myself from time to time. Hopefully, a philosophical method more like the above would help mitigate this problem. That said, I'm sure the method I suggest could deal with some refining of its own. And maybe you can add this:
Aetixintro writes:
The instance of where scientific and philosophical methods align is that of Naturalism. Otherwise, I'm with the list that has been made by
Postmodern Beatnik in his post of 01/19/09 - 07:51 PM. I'd like to add to point 1 the making of invention of fitting descriptions and what else
like that of fallibilism, locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary, performative, transcendence. I think you can get far by inventing an appropriate
perfect description in one of the philosophical fields that may set the course for others to follow.
Is this totally off?
Has Ben Bernanke been irrational? I think Bernanke has been "not so bright" [formerly "stupid"] in the past, but he may have been learning after that. I hope the economy gets the best in the end. Edit: Is there anyone who knows where to access a historical overview of the interest rates of the Fed? I believe I've tried the Fed itself, but there is no way in that jungle.
Banno wrote: "So it can't be true that the cat is on the mat, because he might get off it?" That the cat may be on the mat is certainly true. To say that you should include propositions of every object in all perspectives, micro and macro, the cat and the cat's quarks, is to demand too much. I think it's sufficient to describe the possibilities as included natural laws, such that if a living thing isn't physically prevented to lie down somewhere, it does. I see where you're coming from and I understand. I emphasise in this regard that the physical conditions with the energy and matter in it, doesn't change, therefore I think that the truth about all possible instances in the universe stays the same. This is not a big deal to me, but I think it's fun to consider it this way.
Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 2:11 PM: 180 Proof wrote: "Aetixintro wrote: "Can I ask if it is really necessary that God is transcendent?" Is a non-transcendent god "god" in either a religious and/or theistic sense? Examples would be helpful." I can imagine, somewhere in the future, that we can get to experience some kind of entity-matter and that it therefore is not transcendent, yet at the same time this entity-matter may be more primordial than the singularity or the Big Bang or whatever is behind there. I can also imagine that there is no further need to go beyond the God entity-matter because no matter how it behaves there is not another more ultimate explanation than this. This may be rubbish to some people, but I find it important to point out possibilities, at least for myself while giving others a chance to follow.
Some working titles are "protected", ie. given legal recognition. You can't call yourself something unless you have completed a certain education. I think this goes for: Engineer - finished 3 yrs. technical college education or the equivalent university ed. Usually works as an engineer. Medical doctor - finished 5 yrs. university profession-education. Lawyer - finished 5 yrs. university profession-education. Psychologist - finished 5 yrs. university profession-education. others Then: Bachelor degree in philosophy - Answer: I have completed minor degree in philosophy. Masters degree in philosophy - Answer: I have a degree in philosophy. You also work as an assistant in college or university. Answer: I am a philosopher. Doctorate degree in philosophy - Answer: I am educated a philosopher in which I am also a doctor. Works in college or university, teaches and the rest. Answer: I am educated a philosopher and I am a philosopher, actually I am a professor of philosophy. I think the word "philosopher" has some of the same status as the word "therapist". There is really no formal qualification for calling yourself this. It is already said that "philosopher" is very different from f.x. "lawyer". This is, however, of no importance.
From http://forums.philosophyforums.com...findpost=549880#post549880
Aetixintro writes:
What you do to the common pool of humanity is what you bear with you to the moment of death. This includes attitudes to humanity, as well.
There are probably a hundred other reasons I should mention, but I don't.
P.S. Excuse me for not having read the whole thread. If it's a serious mistake, I'll get back to it.
erik_n wrote: What is scientific truth? I take it we are past the epistemology, but still the same I say that scientific truth has been through the processing of both the tripartite definition of knowledge and the HDM, hypothetico-deductive method, and has been given consensus in the scientific community and thus given the status of scientific truth. One example is the model of the atom. I'd like to remind people that every object in the fringes of and in the combined life-world of every human being is regarded in science. Many of these are of course scientific truths. I believe there is little use of contesting the status of certain grain in the agriculture and certain trees and plants in biology. There are consequently very many examples. I'd also like to remind people they should hold scientific theories and scientific truths apart, but this is implied in what I have already written. erik_n wrote: Can truth change? As such, truth is as stable as the world is coherent, I hold. If truth changes one should be able to see many funny effects, but they are of course absent. erik_n wrote: Do new theories mean that old ones are "untrue"? I say yes on this one. Let us look at the example of Newtonian theory that has been relieved by Einsteinian theory. The two theories conflict on several issues and the theory of Einstein has proven superiority by far. By the way, it has been known for a long time, even before Einstein has delivered his theory that the Newtonian theory is wrong or unable to account for certain facts. longfun wrote: To accept theory as truth does not make it truth. I think in this instance that truth goes as far as the word truth can be used. Is it true that the world exists for humanity now? Of course it is! longfun wrote: Look at "the earth is flat" or even "evolution" Can you elaborate on this?
Apropos tossing coins.
Donald Gillies in Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century, page 209 writes:
"I tossed an ordinary coin (an old penny) 2,000 times. Calculations show that, if we assume probability(heads)=1/2, there is a probability of
97.3 per cent that m/n will lie in the interval (0.475, 0.525). The observed value of m/n was actually 0.487, giving a confirmation, rather
than falsification."
I absolutely recommend the book. The suggestion is that one side in this case receives punishment from a factor of 0.487 because of rubbing
contact to the surface.
I don't think people of ancient times have been any stronger because they have lived without the use of medicine. Technology furthers humanity. It raises the likelihood of tapping a well-educated mind for another 30 years, more or less. I think humanity learns to be stronger in new ways these days. We are discovering new synergies between humanity and technology. If we can keep people alive indefinitely, I say "Do it!". That is, if the system you are part of can afford it. What if we discover some new method in the future where it is possible to leave one's old body with a new one prepared and ready for you? We can take the next step and prolong the most valuable lives even further. Go humanity! Go technology!
Maybe we are using 10%-12% of the whole brain, but I believe we are using close to 100% of the relevant modules or centres relative to what we cognize. I think it may prove impossible to activate the whole brain at once. It may be that subconsciousness is also taking up some of the capacity. If the human brain is to improve, it needs to get bigger and the hippocampi faster and more potent. There may be a cybernetic version of the hippocampus that is called a gimp. I agree with the computer compared to human.
History is being recorded. One major characteristic of history, is that it is supposed to be documented. Maybe it is the search and the special ways of recording histories that make history interesting, I don't know. Let's say we write history in logical notation, then every account of history should look the same. I find few controversies in history. How many ways are there to account for Gordon Brown speaking to the U.S. Congress or how many ways are there to describe Bill Gates' way to his success? Obviously, there is not so much room to maneuver in. Further, let's say you have a video-recording of something that you are going to narrate and the recording is being archived as the documentation, what is the problem? Are you going to tell about the ghosts?
I believe the sentence "I love you" may be open to scientific inquiry by fMRI and mapping the results with Neural correlates of consciousness.
Anyhow, I have a suggestion with this:
A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy
God is creating the best possible world. In creating the best possible world, God chooses the best possible process, namely the evolution. In
showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to
the instance of nothing. The beliefs that lack in quality make people fail. A bad quality is a quality that lacks in greater quality. The bad
quality is therefore marked with something that is missing, it is marked with a degree of nothing. Evil is therefore of instance of nothing. So
there it is, the world of something and nothing. God is represented with full and all quality. Perfection in this is open to all but it is of
course difficult. In making the small great God is going full circle hence God’s own nature and this constitutes the perfect drama of full quality.
It doesn’t necessarily end there. It can continue into more circles of even new dramas of the full scale of smaller quality processes into greater
quality processes and back again to the full quality of God. The conclusion of this is naturally that we are a part of a perfect drama between the
gravities of nothing and all on the path back to God from where we originated.
There is an assumption in this that everything is created with a certain degree of perfection, that there is a bit of the perfect in all of us.
A machine has never shown anything outside syntactic results and therefore, if we never achieve anything better, fundamentally, a machine will never know. There should be a revolution in engineering computers before there is some possibility for it to show something else than mere calculations.
A suggestion may be: I am and my being of perception is my internal world. This internal world is my mind, but since I have a mind and genetics tell me I'm a genetic representation of my parents, the function of the mind must follow my being that has been given the birth by my parents, therefore my parents must have minds too and as people die, my parents will and I remain. As my parents represents others who also die, I die. That which remains when I'm dead, is the external world, the world between myself, my parents and others.
I think that putting yourself and your mind in the most prospective way possible of beneficiaries, here and now, all respects considered, is going to reward you, rightfully, with eternal bliss and reach. Now, go and be unhappy!
Perhaps, where there is perfect vacuum, on the outside the universe.
We have the established National Parks, sanctuaries for animals. I also believe that most developed nations have populations that are declining, less the immigration. The solution for the uncontrolled growth is for the world to become developed and arranging 90% of the population to live in cities.
Somehow, I think it is insecurity that is driving people to multiply so much.
Gloucester wrote:
"If we're a virus what is the antibiotic?"
Self-control.
As for The Matrix:
I see the "rebels" as propagating humanity and existentialism and I see the agents, Agent Smith and the like, as representing limiting
factors and short-sightedness, in many ways, the materialist who clings to routine and conventional world views.
reincarnated wrote:
"OK. But that doesn’t tell me what “knowledge” is exactly. Does knowledge entail truth, for example?"
I write something simple because I'm very unsure about the induction issue. I think there may be a way around it. It is a hugely
complex issue, the issue of knowledge and epistemology in general. I don't want to answer it right now.
reincarnated wrote:
"But the question is whether you believe everything can (in principle) be explained by science/logic, or whether some things require
some kind of supernatural explanation?"
Yes. I believe that everything can in principle be explained by science and logic.
reincarnated wrote:
"I’m not sure that any of the propositions in my list are provable (except possibly tautologically) – they are assumed true."
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used "proved". Apart from that, I think the point is made.
reincarnated wrote:
"If morality is defined as the rightness and wrongness of things, you believe that what is considered right and what is considered wrong
is not subjective?"
Yes!
180 Proof wrote:
"3. We know about quarks, Calabi-Yau manifolds, blind sight, Euclid's axioms, etc. None of which we "experience"."
You're right, but it's not my point. I want to write that the work of the mind is a kind of experience. We build up a more powerful mind
as the years pass and it is this that I write is the experience to point to. Euclid's axioms haven't come about overnight. Nowadays,
people are quite old and well-educated before they publish something novel worth the attention. It takes experience. I have also omitted
the induction issue, see above.
180 Proof wrote:
"8. As a metaphysical claim it cannot be proven and as a methodological statement it need not be -- either it works or it doesn't."
It is taken, see above.
180 Proof wrote:
"10. I think I understand this but..."
Alright.
180 Proof wrote:
"11. Kant was mistaken."
We disagree here. I think one is wrong to point to Kant's Christian background.
Can I just add, I haven't followed the entire discussion, that psychology/psychiatry is not always based on consensus of what is normal, but also the degree of functional capacities, you know, like speed of reactions, steadiness of mind, capacity and reliability of memory, all in all, the cognitive abilities?
Mental illnesses usually come with defects in functional abilities like with social interaction. I believe psy./psy. are not so much about the mindset as long as one is interacting well in social terms and one deals well in the workplace. You can believe what you want, but there is a demand that you cope with the environment in functional terms as long as the environment is not of extreme kinds.
I am reading the article, Logic and Conversation, and I am struggling to get to terms with it. It seems to me that any implication in ordinary language, important, can't make an implication without breaking a rule of clarity or falling victim to contextual infinite regress.
What do you think of the article and what are your opinions about it? Can you, please, make references when possible?
Obviously, there are major differences in clarity between unnatural and natural languages. I look forward to your replies.