Post subject: The Problem of Evil. A Theodicy PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:05 am
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.
Post subject: Re: The Problem of Evil. A Theodicy PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:25 pm
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.
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.
Post subject: A Modal Objection to Rawls - About the original position PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:43 pm
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?
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.
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.
Post subject: Re: Did you ever watch True Romance? PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:17 pm
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!
Post subject: Re: Faith in divine entities is actually faith in fellow humans PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:10 am
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.
Post subject: Re: Faith in divine entities is actually faith in fellow humans PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:14 am
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!
Post subject: Re: The Golden Rule PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:13 am
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.
Post subject: Re: What is the Source of the Universe ? PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:15 pm
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.)
Post subject: Re: What is the Source of the Universe ? PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:32 pm
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!
Post subject: Re: Chinese execution PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:04 pm
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.
Post subject: Re: Chinese execution PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:11 am
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.
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!
Post subject: Re: Chinese execution PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:38 am
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!
Post subject: Re: Chinese execution PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:21 pm
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!
Post subject: Re: Chinese execution PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 pm
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!
Post subject: Re: Chinese execution PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:15 pm
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!
Post subject: Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:30 am
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.
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?
Post subject: Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:30 am
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?
Post subject: Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:06 am
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.
Post subject: Re: "Philosophers in Chains" PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:00 pm
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!
Post subject: Are emotions rational? PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:50 pm
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.
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!
Post subject: Re: A Case for Dualism - New? Or Not? PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:02 pm
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.
Post subject: Re: A Case for Dualism - New? Or Not? PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:20 pm
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.
Dictionary.com: an⋅ec⋅dote
-noun
a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.
Post subject: Re: A Case for Dualism - New? Or Not? PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:16 pm
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!
Post subject: Re: How do you deal with infinity. PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:06 pm
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.
Post subject: Re: How do you deal with infinity. PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:06 am
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.
Post subject: Re: How do you deal with infinity. PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:29 pm
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.
Post subject: Re: Existence Is Pointless PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:30 am
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.
Post subject: Re: Existence Is Pointless PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:47 am
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.
Post subject: Re: Existence Is Pointless PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:49 pm
I heartily agree with prof. Atar. The belief in Infinity, God solves meaning and the host of other problems!
Post subject: Re: Existence Is Pointless PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:40 am
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!
Post subject: Re: Satyr's Metaphysics PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:40 pm
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.
Post subject: Re: Satyr's Metaphysics PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:55 am
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!
Post subject: Re: I have psychic powers PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:46 am
Count me in! I have psychic powers of telepathy yet those powers only yield in "a certain light from a certain angle".
Post subject: Re: Expansion of EU PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:02 am
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.
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.
Post subject: Re: Expansion of EU PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:42 pm
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!)
(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!)
Post subject: Re: Expansion of EU PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:46 pm
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?
Post subject: Re: Expansion of EU PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:46 pm
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.
Post subject: Re: Philosophical Assistance. PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:25 am
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.
Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:02 pm
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
Problem of induction on Wikipedia
The Problem of Induction on SEP
Post subject: Re: New View On Induction - I'm Against Hume. PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:26 am
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)
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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment