The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 13

Posted Jan 24, 2010 - 3:24 PM: String theory and quantum mechanics - The current scientific view on these two subjects

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.

Posted Jan 24, 2010 - 8:30 AM: In Defense of a Private Language

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!

Posted Jan 23, 2010 - 10:49 AM: Morality vs. Deity - Wether one should go with one's heart, or god.

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!

Posted Jan 23, 2010 - 10:32 AM: What's up with Einstein's 4+1 dimensions? - The technical bit of Relativity tells about 4 dim. of space and 1 of time. Yes?

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!

Posted Jan 23, 2010 - 10:05 AM: Morality vs. Deity - Wether one should go with one's heart, or god.

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.

Posted Jan 23, 2010 - 3:47 AM: Morality vs. Deity - Wether one should go with one's heart, or god.

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?

Posted Jan 23, 2010 - 12:23 AM: In Defense of a Private Language

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.

Posted Jan 20, 2010 - 12:16 AM: Irredeemable truths

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.

Posted Jan 17, 2010 - 5:47 PM: Problems of other minds - discussion about the problems of other minds

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!

Posted Jan 17, 2010 - 5:29 PM: anti-realism and unobservables

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

Posted Jan 17, 2010 - 2:35 PM: Morality vs. Deity - Wether one should go with one's heart, or god.

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

Posted Jan 17, 2010 - 12:00 AM: My problems with agent causation. - Can you help me with this idea...

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.

Posted Jan 16, 2010 - 9:58 AM: My problems with agent causation. - Can you help me with this idea...

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?

Posted Jan 15, 2010 - 11:54 PM: Are timeless entities impossible?

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...

Posted Jan 15, 2010 - 6:35 PM: The Essence of Business In America - Are those with less money slaves to the rich in our supposed "land of the free"?

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.

Posted Jan 15, 2010 - 6:29 PM: Truth as commitment - an argument for scepticism?

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!

Posted Jan 15, 2010 - 6:04 PM: The Essence of Business In America - Are those with less money slaves to the rich in our supposed "land of the free"?

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.

Posted Jan 14, 2010 - 3:09 PM: The Essence of Business In America - Are those with less money slaves to the rich in our supposed "land of the free"?

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...

Posted Jan 14, 2010 - 2:15 PM: Is Allah = God?

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!

Posted Jan 14, 2010 - 1:56 PM: Anonymity... - Why is anonymity suggested or required in forums like this?

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!

Posted Jan 12, 2010 - 12:36 PM: What is Knowldge?

"...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...

Posted Jan 12, 2010 - 11:29 AM: What is Knowldge?

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".

Posted Jan 11, 2010 - 9:24 AM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you? Are you ready to face the consequences?

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!

Posted Jan 10, 2010 - 6:27 PM: For Africa - Is the European or US media coverage decent in respect to African matters?

There's this also: despite the big boom of the Mining industry, there's almost not a word of Africa (CNN, BBC World News) which should be one of the biggest unexplored resources underground in the World. Such a vast territory and almost no good progress of the societies... There are definitely business opportunities in the natural resources... I wonder to what level the mining companies have a clue of what's in the ground there and what is yet to be discovered. Well, alright! Coming about!

Posted Jan 10, 2010 - 2:15 PM: Are emotions irrational? - Are emotions something we can rationally contol, or do they control us?

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!

Posted Jan 10, 2010 - 11:20 AM: Are emotions irrational? - Are emotions something we can rationally contol, or do they control us?

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.

Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 5:18 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you? Are you ready to face the consequences?

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.

Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 3:57 PM: World government - Speculation on the impossible.

Why can't the International Authority be called the General Secretary of this World State? I mean, this world state can already be called U.N. without stepping on people's toes. I agree, so should it be a federation or a confederation?

Posted Jan 9, 2010 - 8:35 AM: "Social Construct" - Just what does this mean anyway?

I think it's inherent that this turns on relativism! I agree! It is loony! Alright! Maybe something like this: the strongest/most powerful group or person in "town" has a view/an idea and enforces this view/idea through society/community to the extent that everyone comes to believe it! In effect of this account, the strongest/most powerful in physical force can define The Truth. It's surely rubbish, but I've seen something like it in Philosophy of Science/Sociology of Science!

Posted Jan 8, 2010 - 8:08 AM: Sociological Examinations of Atheists and Religious - Do you have an angle to an investigation that sheds light on Ath/Rel?

To know whether one lifestyle consists in something the other doesn't! To know what the life of one or the other can be like in the particular regard... Sociology?

Posted Jan 8, 2010 - 7:55 AM: Sociological Examinations of Atheists and Religious - Do you have an angle to an investigation that sheds light on Ath/Rel?

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

Posted Jan 7, 2010 - 5:51 PM: Can a God, who is perfect, have desires? - Is Desire and Perfection mutually exclusive? Or is there a perfect desire?

(Is this only in regard to the Christian God?) I'd say, along with a number of you, that it's impossible for God to have desires, even if God is fond of us! Being such a big "head" makes us nothing more than the function of God's "breathing", I think! Just my opinion on the table.

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 2:30 PM: An Argument Against Physicalism - A (possibly new?) thought experiment that is intended to refute physicalism.

tennenrishin I think your argument works if (in addition to your own)... The colours of the rooms are obscured from the "omniscience" The neuron-firings of their brains are the same regardless They give no reports They always hide their histories (from possible others) One doesn't question the "omniscience" ------------------ Is this the definition of solipsism? [Edit:] Then I come to think of something... They can be just the same in their own universe. They can be speaking different languages. The two realities are not connected! I wonder if the argument works after all. They, these to people, are not relevant to each others knowledge, therefore it doesn't matter which of these people one is. if you are in the red room so be it, but there's no one who can be able to receive the account! Well, it still rings in my head... Just ponder it... It's funny if nothing else! I also wonder, do the entities involved need to be a subject to knowledge for making an argument in any direction in Philosophy of Mind? If it isn't subject for knowledge, how is one supposed to confirm the case? If I imagine having a copy somewhere that I'll never know about and having this "omniscience" to know it all except that I'm I and never be able to say anything about it either, how can this argument get off the ground? rolling eyes What is this information that Physicalism misses? The fact that you are you escaping the "omniscience" who isn't really the "omniscience"?

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 2:08 PM: Is imitation better than... - originality?

"...and we're no match for the likes of Einstein, Marx, Wittgenstein..." Never say never... who knows who passes through here... Interest in philosophy is a nice mind-game, isn't it?

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 2:01 PM: Evolution and Nietzsche's Overman - huh?

"...it takes millions of years of evolution." Superiority has to be defined at every turn and the composite of this in every generation of every couple giving birth is this definition! ....I think... Some time ago, I've heard a genetics-expert say that genes are on/off-switches and I think in some strange way that consciousness gives this expression. Uncertain to what extent... Hello there in the lab...

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 1:48 PM: Is Philosophy... - ...an exercise in futility?

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!

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 1:35 PM: Atheist and Religious: one and the same - Reconciliation

The Agnostic Scientist (by CharlieP of PF)? Believes in no other entities than those of science, but is open to everything, even in death. 180Proof has mentioned something about a "working hypothesis" and perhaps the entities of science are a working hypothesis as much as the entities of non-science are a working hypothesis (we need to deduct Calory and Phlogiston and all those that are ruled out!). Also, a child can't be said to be either an Atheist or a True Believer, I think, as the child has yet to reach a consciousness of Religion or its opposite!

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 9:26 AM: Is religion psychosis?

I think ciceronianus has a very good point! It's also clear that Big Bang is a theory and how do you definitely know that you're not part of some "fantasy"/theory that may very well turn out to be very false in the future! What I think about your use of "psychosis" is that placing all religious people, 5 Billions, in it, makes this use void! As for the "babble", like issuing motivation of Muslims and naming a good deal of the conflicts that have involved Muslims, and those conflicts haven't caused anything major in the world. How do you explain the relative success of these religious/"psychotic" people? You must have a problem with a Christian psychiatrist! The Religious person can differentiate between one's religion/"fantasy" and reality very well. You should just ask for the explanation for this Religion and I have this certainty in me that this explanation will be wholly Religious, not a part of the reality as such, whatsoever!

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 5:12 AM: Is religion psychosis?

Would "a man" be an indiscriminate man or is "a war" an indiscriminate war? Muslims don't start wars on the fly! Be for real, dude! They don't kill like that, either! Nations of Muslim majority have largely been peaceful since 1900 or so. There are Afghanistan and Russia, the Kashmir, Iraq and Iran, Egypt, Libanon, Syria and Israel, but these have not been of particular severity! They have been limited and largely unaffected the rest of the World.

Posted Jan 6, 2010 - 5:04 AM: What is an atheist?

http://www.the-brights.net/ The Brights' Net defines the Atheist wrote: * A bright [Atheist] is a person who has a naturalistic worldview * A bright's [Atheist's] worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements * The ethics and actions of a bright [Atheist] are based on a naturalistic worldview Is Your Worldview Naturalistic? Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright! On this website, you can simply say so and, by doing so, join with other brights from all over the world in an extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights movement. The movement's three major aims are: 1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements. 2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance. 3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals. The key is "naturalistic worldview (free of supernatural and mystical elements)." This should be representative of Atheists. People who have doubts about it, believe in "ghosts" and so on, are agnostics at least or believers beyond on that.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 6:10 AM: For Africa - Is the European or US media coverage decent in respect to African matters?

To me, trying to be objective in my moral approach, I see it as my responsibility, partly(!), to speak out in favour of African progress and the banishment of famines/starvation and all that. When it comes to metropolises, I see them as instrumental to human welfare and good ecological practice! The World Bank has issued how much metropolises may mean in respect to these matters. I therefore support maximum regional centralisation! This is not like Big Brother or dictatorship or UN New World Order or such. It's just that I think people are the best people when they relate to one another and share the aptness of mind of living in metropolises! I'm as much Urbanist as possible, yet this is, I believe, also the most responsible ecological approach too (Urbanist and Ecologist!)!

Posted Jan 5, 2010 - 6:00 AM: What are the obligations of our elected leaders?

"What are the obligations of our elected leaders?" As a voter, I expect them to stick to the program that is the basis of them being elected. As the OP says, there's this danger of them switching sides, but this should put that politician out of office (for good?) if the politician's betrayal is of significance. (This is probably already understood!)

Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 8:52 PM: Is religion psychosis?

Also, functionality and decency are usually retained in Religious people, something you don't find to be the case in psychotic people!

Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 8:50 PM: Deism, just wondering... - I was wondering if anyone would be interested in discussing the idea of Deism.

I deeply agree with Deism! It's just the best and it cuts all the crap. I see only the best philosophical reflections in it and there's no problem of granting all good people access to Heaven in that particular system, again drawing on the absolutely fine philosophical considerations. If you want a recommendation on a website I find to be good, I'll give you it. Good luck with your (superior) belief, less of contradictions!

Posted Jan 3, 2010 - 11:48 PM: Appreciation - Gods work

While the Catholic Church is seeing itself as exercising the miracle of (the) Angels, I think it's about appreciating the whole life as the miracle of divine matters in that you nurture your own personal (potential) Angel-nature and by doing this correctly you also side with and work with exactly those angels of the Catholic Church without being a Catholic. As such, one is enjoying Angels' work and miracle in one's own life by one's good integrity and moral and this makes a beautiful foundation for appreciation. Life is a miracle!

Posted Jan 3, 2010 - 10:05 PM: For Africa - Is the European or US media coverage decent in respect to African matters?

The reporting I get from CNN and BBC World News: malaria, HIV/AIDS, poverty, famine, Zimbabwe government mess (Mugabe corruption), yes, the dead lions and failure on ecology, the diminishing rainforests, the spreading of deserts, Sierra Leone uprising and dirty diamond trade and people digging for diamonds with the hands, countries trading CO2 caps with Africa because they're not polluting, have no industry, from Copenhagen, Africa must cut CO2 emissions from its non-existence, [Edit:] the Darfur-crisis in Sudan along with internal tension of having the southern region breaking away from the central government, the long-lasting civil war of Somalia. - It's mostly the sad news to such extent that you're breath is lost while having those news. One break, however, the World Championships in soccer is coming to South Africa and is well underway in preparation. That is sports, but it may work as the exhibition window that's deeply needed.

Posted Jan 3, 2010 - 11:36 AM: Hesitation - When we know life is unpredictable why do we still hesitate in life?

I contend life is unpredictable! I think I hesitate for good reasons and there are indeed dangers in life you would like to avoid, like a dangerous overtaking of a car on the highway, for instance! Besides, as much as it's expressed in time, you may want to check out http://www.t-lea.net/Time.html that may give an argument on hesitation/prediction, but not anything definitive!

Posted Jan 3, 2010 - 10:44 AM: Why not investigate it? - Why would you not do serious investigation about the Bible?

Another mystery to the Bible: we are created in God's image and are supposedly God's children. Why don't we have, principally, the same good being and abilities as Jesus? Why can't I claim to have the possibility of achieving this without being seen as a heretic, satanist? It follows from nature that everything that has taken place before, can be repeated if the instances, factors are the right ones! As Jesus is an actual person, why can't others become just like him? Consequently, you have a DEEP problem explaining His virgin birth! Is this, the virgin birth, a contradiction? I'll see if I have more complaints later! hindsey, thanks for making this thread, you definitely put things on the table! Even if I disagree with you on the mindset of God, torturing his own son to death, possibly only being a criminal in the Jewish account.

Posted Jan 2, 2010 - 4:12 PM: Why not investigate it? - Why would you not do serious investigation about the Bible?

"So, God's justice is met by punishing Jesus instead of us." Still, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all one, the Trinity. Have God tortured himself? This should be a contradiction. Besides, I keep speculating what great things a living human God among us could possibly do, f.x. delivering welfare and true knowledge of all in the universe by the flick of his fingers! Such moron action to crucify a person like that!

Posted Jan 2, 2010 - 3:37 PM: Why not investigate it? - Why would you not do serious investigation about the Bible?

I think I withdraw on a lot of my skepticism on the Bible, but I'm aware that the Jews have a totally different story of Jesus than the Christians have, that he's just a criminal. What do you say to that? Still, also, I find those many contradictions, just to mention one abrupt one, that if in fact God's son (God in alter ego) is here with us and then he's killed on the cross and that is supposed to be GOOD for us! That's just f**king stupid so I refuse to have anything to do with Christianity!

Posted Jan 2, 2010 - 11:38 AM: Why not investigate it? - Why would you not do serious investigation about the Bible?

"1- you think God should have communicated the message sooner, and 2- you just think that the authors wrote down what they heard other people talking about. Right?" I'm not sure if "sooner" is the right word. To me, the whole thing has been generated by people as mixture of culture, religious philosophy, moral education and human heritage. It's definitely true that I deeply question the the authenticity of what is written in the New Testament. What are really the dates of authorship of the New Testament? The first communication of God I know about is with Moses on the mountain, but that is strongly dubious! As I've written, I need accurate information on the authoring history of the New Testament. These are my thoughts! Btw, maybe in excess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible.

Posted Jan 2, 2010 - 11:08 AM: Why not investigate it? - Why would you not do serious investigation about the Bible?

As I understand it, I'm particularly angry with this Jesus, why has it taken so long to write it all down when there has been paper available the whole time since 300 BC(?)? I also think much of the bible is based on hearsay as a consequence. There are many things to object to in the bible, but this is my first objection.

Posted Jan 1, 2010 - 4:51 PM: A response to the kalam/cosmological arguments - arguments and objections bazaar open

It should be possible to assume two (or more) time-lines: an infinite for God, in whatever way it happens, and one for (each) universe. Universe should (or not) have a beginning and some kind of end (eg. extinguished energy sufficient for life, not to say intelligence). Making the appropriate changes in the light of something like Deism should please an existing (the natural) God.

Posted Dec 31, 2009 - 10:50 AM: IDDQD! - How did God become God...?

But God is timeless! God makes God! Time is a notion to people who have duties in ordinary reality. Time and God are one, in unification! God is time! Time is God! But God is also many other entities and one of them is Time! Time... Time... Time... Time... And then God... Or God is always and forever... Time is useless in respect to God... There is no need for time when you're with God because it's infinite, thus time makes no sense! God... God... God...

Posted Dec 30, 2009 - 9:44 AM: Philosophical Influences - Who is looking over your shoulder?

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!

Posted Dec 27, 2009 - 9:22 PM: What is the classification for these ethical theories/claims?

Ms Nyne wrote: It's generally seen as a starting point, as I understand it, because objectivism demands more from every human being who follows it than can reasonably be expected (i.e., Edward Westermarck). It should be enough to envision a flawless Ethical System that allows you to identify moral mistakes, not that you live by the Ethical System down to the letter necessarily. Only the remark.

Posted Dec 21, 2009 - 6:57 PM: Supporting the Enemy

I think purely blameless people first support purely blameless people in other countries before they support "criminals" in their own country. That is, they are first humans, universally, and then part of some organisational entity like a country or company or whatever. The focus is of course on Blameless!

Posted Dec 20, 2009 - 3:23 PM: Hey Where Did You Get That Name? - Where did you get you nicname from?

Aetixintro- Aether - Crossed x (with) - Absinthe - Greek letter of Ro = Aeti

Posted Dec 11, 2009 - 9:14 PM: Dissociative Identity Disorder - How do multiple identities interact in a person?

I can imagine that the personality that can be developed in "normal/ideal" circumstances is the "main" personality of the person, "inner" person. I'm not a skeptic in getting to know people, quite the other way around, but it's busy these days, you're supposed to work hard and earn money and so on. You're very much spot on, but I say that insanity IS insanity. If you're looking for evolution, you should examine the history of healthy, normal, FUNCTIONING people. For instance, what I've been getting is that people have generally become bigger in size and that the size of the brain has followed suit. I think this indicates we are getting smarter and that future people will be even smarter. Maybe this occurs slowly?

Posted Dec 11, 2009 - 7:49 PM: Dissociative Identity Disorder - How do multiple identities interact in a person?

Maybe, there's this stem of those 3 identities and that depending on what forces and social anticipations that play on XYZ, XYZ plays out the relevant personality. For actual survival?

Posted Dec 8, 2009 - 4:53 PM: Is science essentially philosophical?

If you make the proper axioms for science, science can very well be considered without any remaining philosophy. Wittgenstein is known for an important work to/for/as science, but recommends burning the work after having read it. I think a slightly different approach may be wise as stated with the first sentence.

Posted Dec 7, 2009 - 1:55 PM: Religion and Consumption

"I take my rice-bowl out on the street and barely live by minimal eating. Yet I find myself spilling methane through the butt and breathing out CO2-emissions. Who knows how much my urine and feces pollute the final destination? It may simply be that we are too many people on planet Earth!" Possible words of Mahat. Gandhi, something for USA? Peace and love!

Posted Dec 6, 2009 - 11:18 AM: Killing for Religion - Double standards?

It can plausibly be said that the word "heathens" plays a crucial role here! Join Deism! There's not much killing to be done in that name!

Posted Dec 6, 2009 - 11:06 AM: The lack of the classic philosophical texts in bookshops - Where are the big beasts? The Kants? The Platos?

I think the many online book-shops make it unnecessary for the actual book-shops to contain more than what they sell. This should be pure logic. They're book-shops, not book storages. So, I've gotten hold of the classics of Karl Popper and SSR of Thomas Kuhn and a lot more. The internet solves it all! It's such a wonder! It's also good to use the Adelaide resource that comes in fine formatting: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/ I guess most of you have this one bookmarked already!

Posted Dec 6, 2009 - 10:57 AM: On the Assertion That All Observation is Theory-Laden - Theory-Laden, what?

When you state that something is 4 light years away, I believe it's already assumed that the light travels at speed of light for 4 years and thus complies to the distance already encompassing Lorentz' contraction. You state it, I think, in a kind of absolute distance regardless of the effects of light travel relative to its effects on distance as such, thus you give "4 light years, absolute distance" and the actual distance that's travelled in speed close to speed of light and you write 2 years worth of travel whatever this is in light years. I have taken it to be: 4 light years travelled is 4 light years travelled because there's no faster way of travelling. You simply point to "absolute distance" vs. "distance travelled in a good fraction of the speed of light", right? I still think you fail to separate NEW radiologists from EXPERIENCED ones. Their examinations of the x-rays INCREASE in detail. This may be a good analogy to examining anomalies in science as one is getting better in observing what it may be described as, don't you think? Btw, I've checked out the paper, and it seems to mix several issues on PoS. I don't know how forceful it is. It's from 1988. Do you mind putting some quotes of it here? At least, the author does indeed seem to be more faithful to the naked/naive observations which is a strength, but I think the author fails to envision the best of this view and that the author may be displaying a more cautious view on the issue. Thanks for the link! I've downloaded it!

Posted Dec 5, 2009 - 8:59 PM: On incommensurability

...(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...

Posted Nov 23, 2009 - 11:51 AM: Are morals universal? - Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

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.

Posted Nov 22, 2009 - 7:42 PM: Are morals universal? - Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

Odin wrote: I see, so you are an advocate of objective morality? Yes! Odin wrote: What do you think is the universal principle underlying what you believe to be objective morality. In other words, your morals are derived from what? There are wrong and right actions in the subject, a human construct, of Ethics and Morals. We sense right and wrong actions and we sort them in a human made domain of ethics and morals. I don't deny there may be more fundamental truths of ethics and morals reflected in nature, a kind of "moral" expression exists in nature itself, but this is a longshot at best.

Posted Nov 21, 2009 - 10:03 PM: Are morals universal? - Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

I write exactly the opposite. Morals (or rather the ethical considerations) has to be universal in order to be objective. The stuff on forcing one's morals on others, I think, has been answered sufficiently in my last post before this one. If you want a name, I give you Jurgen Habermas.

Posted Nov 19, 2009 - 11:56 PM: Is science dogmatic?

Look... Science is as broad as it gets and it only has the HDM, hypothetico-deductive-method, as framework. You still have too live up to the standards of repeatability and such, but that's just in place so people don't get away with crap and fraud. If you can come up with a wider, sound framework, you're welcome! Science is counter to dogmatic down to the very most inner nature. If you can present better science, it's all good! If you insist on science being dogmatic, I find that you should back it up with concrete examples. The thing with Underdetermination in science is that it's so bloody hard to come up with better theories that stand the tests. So if you have some revelations up your sleeve, you're welcome with those as well!

Posted Nov 9, 2009 - 6:16 PM: Are morals universal? - Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

A fast response to the header of this thread. If one's morals aren't universal, I think they fail objectivity and thus lack in virtue. The morals should concern every human being and everywhere human beings rule, ie. Planet Earth. Now, should you force your morals on others? I say we live in democracy most of us and are obliged to follow the law, at least initially. The modus for interacting with people is by rational discussion. I guess it's mostly morally valid to follow the law in most countries nowadays. So in case of catching someone red-handed in the neighbourhood, should one use force? I say a slap or two should be appropriate. I think one has a moral duty to show disapproval to crime, small or big.

Posted Nov 9, 2009 - 1:56 AM: An attempt at a critique of all idealism - Being an argument intended to show idealism is vacuous.

A small comment on Berkeley: If it's so that ideas make up reality then ideas must be substance, but this should be wrong because the brain stops growing by the age of about 18 so that when you're 50 and thriving in philosophy your head should explode by all the substance-ideas it has gathered. Obviously, there should be separation between reality-ideas and ideas-ideas in the system of Berkeley, but there's not! He should therefore be wrong, right?

Posted Sep 28, 2009 - 8:37 AM: What makes science better than the Bible?

It's inherent that the scientists don't need authority to tell about the facts of science because they should or most are surely aware that those facts are only the best we have now and that there are likely to be improvements in the future. It's also a part of the scientist-situation that if you can prove something better, you get the prize! In religion, you are supposed to believe what you are told by those in that religion. There's no question of one's being wrong in the assertions/doctrines/dogmas. Also Deism appears a lot more friendly in this regard.

Posted Sep 20, 2009 - 4:46 AM: Human Unification. - Seriously it's a two word title, what do you want me to explain? The definition?

I want to say something about competition. I find competition to be a core issue in humanity along with ethics. When Barack Obama puts forward these sound arguments and his character in his struggle to become the president, I find that he's elected because of his virtues and not something else. If it has been possible to prove that he's been running a dirty game in his struggle, it would have been a whole different play. When we come forward with arguments in the exchange of ideas, we really want our arguments to display virtue relevant to the field. How are you supposed to, just as an example, win the citation game without the virtue of sound arguments? Without having the right virtues, one is likely to go nowhere! Competition is good! Have you ever heard of Fair Play in soccer?

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 5:23 PM: Deductive Completeness

It's the form that's the guarantee of truth when done right! I have the sense that logic mostly comes to its right in the form of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the like. The useful logic is not for mortals! F.x. if dogs are cats then cats are elephants dogs are cats therefore cats are elephants Clearly...

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 5:17 PM: Human Unification. - Seriously it's a two word title, what do you want me to explain? The definition?

philosophytomorrow wrote: I thought about that question of what Neitzche knows about human progress and realized it's slightly silly and obvious if you look at his works -- which center around the historical development of humanity and its varying levels of morality. I wonder if Nietzsche has been thinking of Pax Romana as the example of people halting in progression. The era is known to have ended with the Romans and Rome being overrun by barbarians. At least this is how I remember it, inexactness or not. Intellectual games are more widespread now and our culture allows no slavery thereby avoiding a lot of decadence. Point: Nietzsche has never conceived probably that a new global war could involve Earth-humankind-destroying nuclear war. That kind of conflict may refute him in a couple of points. No? All in all, the future looks good.