Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 6

Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 8:09 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 2:02 am

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...

Post subject: Re: For Africa PostPosted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:06 pm

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!

Post subject: Re: For Africa PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:05 am

I like to make an update on media coverage of Africa.
BBC: as these are
* Africa Today
* This Week in Africa
* African Perspective
Now it also seems BBC launches Africa Business Report. Information here: In relation to CNN, I say BBC 1 - 0 CNN.
There's also the initiative stemming from G.W. Bush's days, AGOA, here:
Here's a fine intro to African business life: 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.

Post subject: Re: For Africa PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:54 am

There's been recent developments with CNN in the battle over Africa of BBC vs. CNN. CNN is now launching 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!

Post subject: Re: For Africa PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 1:33 am

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?

Post subject: The Mindframe of an Atheist PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 6:37 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: The Mindframe of an Atheist PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 1:41 am

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!

Post subject: Re: How Can It Be? PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 7:04 pm

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!

Post subject: The Psychiatric Medicines are a State and Insurance driven.. PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2010 12:28 am

...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!

Post subject: Re: The Psychiatric Medicines are a State and Insurance driven.. PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 9:36 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: Parallel Universe Reality PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:02 pm

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.)

Post subject: Re: Parallel Universe Reality PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:32 pm

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...

Post subject: Re: Parallel Universe Reality PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 5:46 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: Martha Nussbaum - Brief Interview PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:49 pm

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.)

Post subject: Re: Martha Nussbaum - Brief Interview PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:17 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: What Is Pantheism? PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:09 pm

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".

Post subject: Re: Is acting morally requisite to reach full potential? PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:38 am

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?

Post subject: Re: Should humanity be destroyed sooner rather than later? PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:31 pm

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.

Post subject: Religious people or atheist people or somewhere in between PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:24 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: Omnipotence, Omniscience & Freewill - Contradiction? PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:01 am

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.

Post subject: Re: How to best write poetry, according to H. D. Thoreau. PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:55 am

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.

Post subject: Re: Philosophical Challenge PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:10 pm

Not only political power to the people, but also information and opportunity!
Internet is thus ideal...!

Post subject: Interpretation of the Plantinga's Modal Form PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:35 am

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:

Post subject: UN map of the world and the respect for nations' territories PostPosted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:56 am

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?

Post subject: Re: Psychiatry & the DSM V PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:02 pm

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!

Post subject: Re: Psychiatry & the DSM V PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:07 am

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.

Post subject: Re: Psychiatry & the DSM V PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:11 pm

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...

Post subject: Re: Suggestion for Syndication of All Primary Industry PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:32 pm

Very well. Much like the OPEC has formed, but it can be done on every level, government, company, worker unions.

Post subject: Re: Suggestion for Syndication of All Primary Industry PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:43 pm

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).

Post subject: Re: How to Change the World without Sacrifices PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:45 am

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!

Post subject: Re: Solution to the Descriptive Problem of Superman versus Clark PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:12 pm

[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: 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
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.]

Post subject: Re: Truth and message to its deniers! PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:24 pm

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!

Post subject: Re: Atheist's Guide to God PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:48 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: In a light hearted way PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:01 pm

Not to enjoy in common the joy of philosophy itself, in learning, thinking and writing?

Post subject: Re: In a light hearted way PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm

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?

Post subject: Re: Toyota jokes: Toyota cars and how I can miss it, moving... PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:09 pm

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.]

Post subject: Re: This is a retard forum PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:08 pm

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 with nice references, suggestions for further reading, and external links out of the Wikipedia website.
Plato and, 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!

Post subject: Re: This is a retard forum PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:06 pm

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.

Post subject: Possible Explanation of the Paradox of the Corona of the Sun PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:47 pm

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,, written by myself.)
"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.

Post subject: Re: Damaging philosophers PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:24 am

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!

Post subject: Re: Damaging philosophers PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:45 pm

I'm in that mood! Such is the war against the pack of Canguilhem, Foucault, Kuhn and the dear Feyerabend!

Post subject: Re: how does Aristotle distinguish the truly virtuous agent from PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:48 pm

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.

Post subject: Re: Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide - Examination PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm

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").

Post subject: Re: Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide - Examination PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:25 pm

To go and kill a person is a crime! To discuss (Assisted) Suicide is not! What planet are you on?

Post subject: Re: A Philosophical Corporation II PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:38 am

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.

Post subject: Re: Pro Free Will! A quickie! PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:46 am

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!

Post subject: Re: Pro Free Will! A quickie! PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 6:33 am

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.

Post subject: Re: Pro Free Will! A quickie! PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:53 pm

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?

Post subject: Re: Euthanasia - Personal Preparedness PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:53 pm

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!

Post subject: Re: Can a Rational Individual believe in God ? PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:52 am

I'd say an individual must be rational to believe in God!

Post subject: Re: Can a Rational Individual believe in God ? PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:36 pm

"’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!

Post subject: The Problem of Evil. A Theodicy PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:49 pm

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.
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.
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.
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.

No comments:

Post a Comment