Post subject: Re: Superior Intelligence Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:59 pm
Apropos a square circle: Hypothetically and "crazy", if a square could be a round object, its four corners would meet at a point on this round object!
[Edit, 02.04.2010:] You can view this in the vein of Riemann who suggests/defines a curved surface triangle to have a total of 270 degrees combined angle as opposed to the usual 180 degrees of a flat triangle.
[End of edit.]
[End of edit.]
[Edit2, 02.04.2010:] Likewise, it should be possible to define a whole square to be round like that. Although, you don't get the bent square, you get the impression of a flat surface with a point in the center and the meeting four edges that line in towards it. This circle then hides a sphere that's a Riemann-bent square. Cool? [End of edit.]
[Edit3, 03.04.2010:] Corrected grammar, ball to sphere. [End of edit.]
[Edit4, 08.04.2010:] Conclusion: I, by this, can hold two views to the best of the possibility of creating square circles, in my view, that are, of course, the 3-D object of the sphere and the 2-D object by the circle, both representing squares in their own right as far as I can envision such squares. These are contrary to traditional views, perhaps, but I still find it cool to have drawn such "crazy" objects. [End of edit.]
Post subject: Re: creativity ain't copying Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:52 pm
Montages?
Andy Warhol has made great artistic points of copying images, although varying them.
Not a criticism of the header, though, because generally I agree with it.
Andy Warhol has made great artistic points of copying images, although varying them.
Not a criticism of the header, though, because generally I agree with it.
Post subject: Re: creativity ain't copying Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:11 am
By the way, restoration may be seen as a kind of copying!
Post subject: Re: Natural Science “do allow no meaning in here”! Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:07 pm
Science insofar it also inludes logic very much allow for meaning! Please, just look up semantics which is in logic another word for exactly meaning.
Post subject: Half the Population of Every Nation Now! Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:18 am
I've written two times about reducing world population as the most important ecological initiative that can be sought.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1329405/half-the-population-of-every-nation-now/:
"Is it really necessary to have a Earth world with more than 100 million inhabitants? I suggest that it is not! Think what a beautiful place it would be! With lots of nature per capita and technology to master all aspects. People would once again become an asset, not a burden. Less populace equals more humanity. Half the population of every nation now! Thanks." This is from Monday, 23 June 2008.
and
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1353431/world-population-reduction/:
"To reduce the world population should be the strongest claim made by the environmental organisations. It is amazing that nobody is shouting it aloud. Reduce the world population by making fewer babies! The developed world should lead the way in this matter. This may also help to get developing countries to the level where developed countries are. Rates of reduction should be worked out by the UN and reduction rates should also reflect solidarity so that no country stands unaffected. Thank you!" This is from Monday, 12 January 2009.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1329405/half-the-population-of-every-nation-now/:
"Is it really necessary to have a Earth world with more than 100 million inhabitants? I suggest that it is not! Think what a beautiful place it would be! With lots of nature per capita and technology to master all aspects. People would once again become an asset, not a burden. Less populace equals more humanity. Half the population of every nation now! Thanks." This is from Monday, 23 June 2008.
and
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1353431/world-population-reduction/:
"To reduce the world population should be the strongest claim made by the environmental organisations. It is amazing that nobody is shouting it aloud. Reduce the world population by making fewer babies! The developed world should lead the way in this matter. This may also help to get developing countries to the level where developed countries are. Rates of reduction should be worked out by the UN and reduction rates should also reflect solidarity so that no country stands unaffected. Thank you!" This is from Monday, 12 January 2009.
I think "half the population of every nation now" can be achieved by a 200 years plan. Please, remember that this is only by the usual contraception (both pills and condoms), effectuating fewer babies.
It's so obvious that reduction of population will reduce the strain on every factor necessary to supply both production to satisfy the needs and also the necessities of this 6,8 Bn population (and growing).
It's so obvious that reduction of population will reduce the strain on every factor necessary to supply both production to satisfy the needs and also the necessities of this 6,8 Bn population (and growing).
My main motivation for bringing this up again, is to get the UN attention to it and action on it! I've tried to posting this issue on Greenpeace Norway's Facebook-page, but there's little response even there! Who can one write to in order to generate some initiative?
BBC has written about it as The Elephant in the Room and now lately as Unsustainable Water Demand in Britain. Do you want to add information? Have your views on this subject changed?
One BBC report (on water resources) is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8628832.stm.
Post subject: Re: Half the Population of Every Nation Now! Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:40 pm
This is not about the reduction of population in terms of some Nazi-type scheme! This is first and foremost to educate the World population at large and discussing the problem of overpopulation.
Fx. one can assure and work out arrangements that ensures people's part in future generations at level today. One can envision the better societies that can take place with, say, 3 Bn people on planet Earth (hopefully about half the 2005 level).
You should also remember that all of these future people are likely to be communicating with one another, that they are theoretically connected, something that has not been the case at this population level before (around 1900 CE).
Fx. one can assure and work out arrangements that ensures people's part in future generations at level today. One can envision the better societies that can take place with, say, 3 Bn people on planet Earth (hopefully about half the 2005 level).
You should also remember that all of these future people are likely to be communicating with one another, that they are theoretically connected, something that has not been the case at this population level before (around 1900 CE).
It's not given that contraception pills are only for women!
As for the means to get there, it says clearly "Please, remember that this is only by the usual contraception (both pills and condoms), effectuating fewer babies." This should also run alongside information campaigns and perhaps it inspires a kind of social movement that helps getting people in line, making it socially/politically correct to promote a smaller population in one's own country! It should help greatly if only the UN makes a recommendation to its member states to work for smaller populations! Besides, it reads in tbieter's post, government coercion, and this suggestion is simply not a matter of coercion, but more or less the same encouragement you get for sorting your garbage by paper etc. and choosing ecological solutions in other aspects of your life. There might be arranged for economic incentives too, like decent economic support for one kid, but economic punishment for three and so on.
Does this bring light?
Post subject: Re: Half the Population of Every Nation Now! Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:49 am
One thing is to write about it (here), but also write about it to other people.
Perhaps one can request the issue being written about in one's local newspaper or broadcasted by one's broadcaster like the BBC for you in England/UK or NRK for us living in Norway.
Perhaps one can request the issue being written about in one's local newspaper or broadcasted by one's broadcaster like the BBC for you in England/UK or NRK for us living in Norway.
So, I see it as half the job just to stir interest! It should has as much virtue, minimum, as An Inconvenient Truth and it should therefore be just as important. One more thing: I don't think it's useful that people feel threatened by touching the topic, I consequently like to emphasise voluntary aspects of it (having fewer babies, possibly starting today) analogous to sorting garbage by type, paper garbage to paper trash, glass and metal to the glass and metal trash and so on...
Post subject: Re: Half the Population of Every Nation Now! Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:52 am
I just like to point out that if this is done on an equal basis, one doesn't need to begin negotiate about other people's rationale, one can immediately start within one's own domain to set a good example.
Post subject: Re: Half the Population of Every Nation Now! Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:45 pm
One more thing to this thread! This thread is a normative recommendation to my own country, Norway, and only a suggestion to other countries! I do vote and I also discuss and promote serious political issues, preferably improvements or solutions, to the contemporary political situation and environment.
One should also remember that by planes and fast trains and the internet technology, being a group of 100 million people may represent a lot more today than in 150 CE. Therefore, becoming 3,4 billion people may not feel like any shock in particular other than a lot more space that's freed up, that it's made possible a sharper distinction between countryside/rural areas and the cities. Wilderness is by no doubt becoming richer by this.
Also, by my recommendation, Norwegian-wise, it brings the number of people back to about 1900 CE which may be exciting, considering the connectedness and the modern ways to organise and regulate. I also think the intrinsic value of the human kind will rise with population reduction. Mostly getting rid of unemployment and most, if not all, of the naughty schemes people may engage in, possibly as a function of...!
As an update, I haven't seen any new initiatives, even as this should be one of the main topics of the environment movement(s). A kind of sad, really, and definitely backward!
Post subject: Re: Half the Population of Every Nation Now! Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:03 am
I still think 3,4 bn people are enough to make the break if it's theoretically possible at all to escape the Milky Way and settle on a new Earth-like planet. At the same time, one makes it possible to achieve many goals of humanism or secular, cross-religious issues, like the possible well-being of all humans living on Earth.
One should also remember that making life on Earth more enjoyable for all may also speed up the science. In the long run also, it may be desirable (for the 150K years or millions of years more the Sun is supposed to shine) to arrange for most people to be happy living with enough resources available (and not as packs of rats, cramped together, eating garbage).
So strategy is by 3,4 bn that is the most sustainable, most happy, most ethical and most ecological, even then, the best in scientific sense as well!
Post subject: Re: Hyperinflation Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:26 pm
What is the alternative to Corporatism? I can't see there is one. I read you, however, as wanting the corporations to be regulated to within a more just playingfield. Ideally, I can't believe that corporations can by law in hand stifle individuals from making their own corporation. Of course, there are hidden rules and moves/coercions that may be played by corporations. On the other hand, making new products nowadays may present bigger challenges than baking cookies in the kitchen and calling them Maryland Cookies or experimenting with consumable fluids and calling it Coca Cola. One can think of mobile phones and most other highly technological products. It's just very complex to achieve.
The best opportunity lies in the approach of J. K. Rowling and other authors who get authorship of host of ideas that they in turn can industrialise into wherever they add value. So, if you intellectually can author something deemed worthy by others there should be a good chance for you! The higher the education, the higher the intellectual range...
Post subject: Re: Who Created The Game? PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 9:40 pm
I think the natural-panendeistic-God created it and not chance!
Post subject: Re: Who Created The Game? PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:14 pm
Some people may get the wrong idea about the word "game". Scientology doesn't imply the word "game" in any other context than the positive, that is, I don't think Scientology condone any "game" with people's lives.
Also, I'm strictly Realist in this sense. I don't believe in any kind of "software"-God.
Post subject: Re: On absurdity of physicalism PostPosted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:08 pm
However, it seems that your assertions/postulations are premises that lead to your conclusion/disproof of physicalism. It's, though, interesting how you insert will and other concepts into philosophy of mind which is novel to me at least. :) Perhaps you know of the Van Lommel studies? I guess they support "our" "cause" if they get properly confirmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Van_Lommel_studies I'll see if I can comment on this in more depth later! PS. You may want to check out these links:
http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3543
http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Van_Lommel_studies I'll see if I can comment on this in more depth later! PS. You may want to check out these links:
http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3543
http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#AD
Post subject: Re: On absurdity of physicalism PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:27 pm
I have this to say for now:
helium writes:
"3. This kind of materialism is no way scientific theory in itself, because:
1. This is an axiomatic system of modern science - a starting point. Before creators of this paradigm we hardly see anything as "science" in modern sense.
2. This paradigm itself is non-falsifiable.
3. As it's non-falsifiable and considered simple, it is the kind of thing where one can say "prove the opposite".
4. The problem with it's non-falsifiability, where it conflicts with Poppers definition of science, is that it's non-falsifiable based on prime axioms of science, namely itself. It's a kind of theorem, which renders itself effectively non-falsifiable forever. One can't possibly disprove it. Thus it's pseudoscience." So by this point 3, do you seriously call science for pseudo-science? The practical point with "materialism" is that it's basically detectable by the human senses or by instruments, thus "objective". In a sense, feelings are already objective because one knows they are electrified by some mechanism, chemical or whatever. The general line for now is that science is indeed in no way materialistic in itself because science accepts everything that can pass as an objective explanation by the HDM, predominantly. So if you can bridge immaterialism or whatever alchemy you want proven, you are already welcome to do this. The hard part is that nobody has been able to do this! Therefore, we have this "fallback" to "materialism".
helium writes:
"3. This kind of materialism is no way scientific theory in itself, because:
1. This is an axiomatic system of modern science - a starting point. Before creators of this paradigm we hardly see anything as "science" in modern sense.
2. This paradigm itself is non-falsifiable.
3. As it's non-falsifiable and considered simple, it is the kind of thing where one can say "prove the opposite".
4. The problem with it's non-falsifiability, where it conflicts with Poppers definition of science, is that it's non-falsifiable based on prime axioms of science, namely itself. It's a kind of theorem, which renders itself effectively non-falsifiable forever. One can't possibly disprove it. Thus it's pseudoscience." So by this point 3, do you seriously call science for pseudo-science? The practical point with "materialism" is that it's basically detectable by the human senses or by instruments, thus "objective". In a sense, feelings are already objective because one knows they are electrified by some mechanism, chemical or whatever. The general line for now is that science is indeed in no way materialistic in itself because science accepts everything that can pass as an objective explanation by the HDM, predominantly. So if you can bridge immaterialism or whatever alchemy you want proven, you are already welcome to do this. The hard part is that nobody has been able to do this! Therefore, we have this "fallback" to "materialism".
Post subject: Re: On absurdity of physicalism PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:04 pm
I just like to add that it's obvious that people come from different points in space and time (formally) and do live their lives as such differently, having different life experiences. As such, people are plausibly "reactor-containers" to their environment so you are right, I think, that people share the same foundation, being humanity and the rest of the scientific descriptions that are indeed the same, with differences also being the differences, ie. the DNA is unique with everyone, that the personality is unique with everyone.
Post subject: Re: Individuality: Creation versus Adaptation PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:33 pm
I think adaptation and creation may be equivalent in this sense. One can create one's way into the future thus one adapts or one can adapt one's way into the future thus one creates.
Post subject: Re: Individuality: Creation versus Adaptation PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:32 pm
The threshold for intelligence is set by mirror test, rather conventionally. In the discussion of what status intelligence is supposed to be regarded as, one might include the adaptation of animals as a kind of creation by directing one's own being, animal DNA, in a given direction. Still the same, I guess you agree with me in the former post, that adaptation and creation by human history may indeed be blurred...
Post subject: Re: Putting the loss back into phi-loss-ophy? PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:14 am
I wouldn't underestimate the power of the best descriptions if I was you, Les Reid. As far those descriptions are good for something to you is up to you, but philosophy generally carries itself by its virtue of importance. If it's no longer, it becomes a matter of historical fact of human activity and reasoning.
Post subject: Re: Putting the loss back into phi-loss-ophy? PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 12:20 pm
It doesn't mean that the Sun doesn't rise and set. It means that the Sun rises and sets (appears to us and then disappears for the night) because it revolves, even according to the scientific standard.
Post subject: Re: The New Atheism - Where’s The Evidence? PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:10 pm
I've read that, "that atheism and religion are on equal footing, in that they are both beliefs without evidence", too and I deeply agree with its conclusion and its implication that Religiousness (preferably Deism by Scientology) and Atheism do equal down to personal taste and aspirations. You can of course disregard the Scientology as I do neither intend nor want to be a missionary for any church except enlighten people of what I think of as the best alternative, Deism (in my own interpretation) by Scientology. *This reading relates to Dr Michael V. Antony and his PN article around this date above.
Post subject: Re: The New Atheism - Where’s The Evidence? PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 12:11 pm
Who says it's settled? It's only a religious belief (or not).
Post subject: Re: The New Atheism - Where’s The Evidence? PostPosted: Thu May 20, 2010 3:52 pm
It's settled insofar as I've come to this point of finding it the best belief possible, but it's not settled as in being decided objectively, of course. However, the content of this belief and also its consequences are significantly different if one is honest about it. It's the reason why I believe as I believe.
Post subject: Re: The New Atheism - Where’s The Evidence? PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:04 pm
I can't see how the atheist is more rational than the deist/theist.
Why should the bare view of today's science say anything about the complete human experience, from God possibly to earth and back to God again, that is including afterlife? I admit we don't have evidence of after-life or more than just the (mortal) birth, life and (mortal) death of a human, but still this is short of many other perspectives.
So while the atheist puts one's sensitivities on science and what can "be put under the microscope", the deist/theist has one's sensitivities on meaning, ethics, infinity and the ontology of intelligence, that all in all is far more rational than what any atheist can muster!
Why should the bare view of today's science say anything about the complete human experience, from God possibly to earth and back to God again, that is including afterlife? I admit we don't have evidence of after-life or more than just the (mortal) birth, life and (mortal) death of a human, but still this is short of many other perspectives.
So while the atheist puts one's sensitivities on science and what can "be put under the microscope", the deist/theist has one's sensitivities on meaning, ethics, infinity and the ontology of intelligence, that all in all is far more rational than what any atheist can muster!
Post subject: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:59 am
Arguments for Ethical Objectivity - By Hallvard Lillehammer To begin with, I believe in ethical, moral objectivity. I believe there's no particular problem in proving this.
(1) That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
(2) "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly. Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist, not that moral errors are committed ethically.
(3) "...ethical claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the world that exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
(4) "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that constitute them would converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there are objective moral duties in relation to the object in question. From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423. It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions. One more thing: I think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of the current diversity of humanity. I've made some additions to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance that I like to address. I've taken notice of "In Defense of Objective Morality" by Wolfman and particularly an apt comment by Mako in it. I'm in sympathy with the intention of the thread, obviously, although, personally, I boil it down to Neo-Kantian deontology for now. I hope to expand on this thread and I also hope you have views on arguments of Companions in Guilt. "Pain looks great on other people, that's what they're for" By Sisters of Mercy, "I Was Wrong"
(1) That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
(2) "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly. Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist, not that moral errors are committed ethically.
(3) "...ethical claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the world that exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
(4) "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that constitute them would converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there are objective moral duties in relation to the object in question. From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423. It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions. One more thing: I think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of the current diversity of humanity. I've made some additions to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance that I like to address. I've taken notice of "In Defense of Objective Morality" by Wolfman and particularly an apt comment by Mako in it. I'm in sympathy with the intention of the thread, obviously, although, personally, I boil it down to Neo-Kantian deontology for now. I hope to expand on this thread and I also hope you have views on arguments of Companions in Guilt. "Pain looks great on other people, that's what they're for" By Sisters of Mercy, "I Was Wrong"
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:31 pm
Do you consider ethical, moral concepts to be empty or non-describable, non-affirmable? Are you arguing for moral skepticism or moral relativism? In my belief of objectivity in this regard, I think there are good possibilities of plausibly arguing for morality to exist, that actions can be described as good or bad according to the subject of ethics and morals. As such, I think one can take it further to make the rational case to other people of reason of deciding objectively what the best consists in. The framework for this can be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it, without imposing particular problems. I think Wootah nicely makes the case for objective status to be credible. That what you think about the world obtains in a very limited way. This should also be the situation of circumstances where morals apply (all?), that circumstances can be described objectively and that there's objective morals to be applied to it.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:53 am
I don't deny that moral mistakes happen on intent or faulty grounds of some of the reasons you describe. It should however be clear that the actual ethical system needs to be, first and foremost, rational, reasonable and plausible for it to be convincing. It can't be flawed. If you then attach whatever you like to it, the outcome should be the same. That is, reason is first and the rest, optionally, follows. Objectivity should suggest whatever in the actual situation that can be caught on camera, documented, traced. If you still have qualms about objectivity, you can interpret it as intersubjective. The subjects considering the situation at hand must be rational and able to agree what is the best ethical solution.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:23 am
nameless writes:
"Cameras make no difference, the image is still in your unique perceptions, 'in your mind', as is your 'documentations' and 'traces'; all in mind, all subjective."
So, it can not even be intersubjective? Does intersubjectivity exist to you? I mean, you've scrapped objectivity. How are people able to cooperate at all if all they perceive is significantly subjective? If you read a scientific report, do you doubt it or are you unable to believe it? Just so I've said it, you take subjectivity too far! nameless writes:
"If no one perceives the tree's falling in the forest, it makes no noise. If no one perceives the tree, there is no tree."
I agree as with the Copenhagen interpretation on this point (only). nameless writes: Yes, I still have qualms as the term 'objectivity' is meaningless (obsolete) to science and logic and philosophy. I can just refer to "From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423." in the beginning of this thread. Do you claim greater authority, insights than the (academic) journal of Mind? Btw, The Mind journal.
"Cameras make no difference, the image is still in your unique perceptions, 'in your mind', as is your 'documentations' and 'traces'; all in mind, all subjective."
So, it can not even be intersubjective? Does intersubjectivity exist to you? I mean, you've scrapped objectivity. How are people able to cooperate at all if all they perceive is significantly subjective? If you read a scientific report, do you doubt it or are you unable to believe it? Just so I've said it, you take subjectivity too far! nameless writes:
"If no one perceives the tree's falling in the forest, it makes no noise. If no one perceives the tree, there is no tree."
I agree as with the Copenhagen interpretation on this point (only). nameless writes: Yes, I still have qualms as the term 'objectivity' is meaningless (obsolete) to science and logic and philosophy. I can just refer to "From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423." in the beginning of this thread. Do you claim greater authority, insights than the (academic) journal of Mind? Btw, The Mind journal.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:44 pm
I take your, the user, nameless, "pragmatic consensus" to be my intersubjectivity, if not objectivity in so far as cinema audience is more or less capable to tell what has been running on the screen they have been watching. I don't say that I'm uncritical, but if there's a book on an issue I want to know about and it appears as scientific, my first thought is to digest it. It may very well be it has been cited first somewhere respectable like in a curriculum on a university website. I have no 'feelings' in this at all. It appears to me to be unreasonable that we are supposed to be so detached from one another that everything is supposed to be 'subjective'. It's plausible that academicians have a lot more time to gather knowledge on, it's their profession and they've had university training, and make opinions of than lay-people. They also have greater resources like libraries with everything that's relevant in their field. These are important differences. Beside the authority, it says April 2009! Those are my words. The quotes are given in quote-marks! The author himself is reportedly pessimistic about the project. Beyond that, I've been wondering if there are people who find "the companions in guilt arguments" interesting. I like to stick out for making "Arguments for Ethical Objectivity". I strongly believe in ethical objectivity. As for what you call "dogma", it's the initiation of the sentences that follow where I've made some additions to a meta-ethical framework to make it better, more robust and objective. I think you haven't considered this.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:27 am
I've pointed to lawfulness and I find it useful when this question comes up. It's not like half the planet ceases to exist only because you see one half. It's rather that you're observation is being made and that the host of necessary conditions, lawfulness, follows it. So the act of seeing is in a way accepting a whole world with it. I think I can call this unseen state indirect observation yet it's a little different from what one usually implies with indirect observation. I guess the first one is for me. I'm uncertain to what extent ignorance can be a state of mind. Clearly, you don't begin to chew the air when you think of food and it goes like that for most or all activities. When you pick up a book, it seems to me to be a contradiction to utter that you don't care what you read. The mind is usually hooked up processing something, the way I see it. It's more like being helplessly active until your death. I'm not sure if this answers it...
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:43 pm
Concerning the perception, I can't see that it's reasonable to say that if every conscious being perish in this universe and a new universe comes into existence with new consciousness, that the consciousness in this new universe has any good reason to assert that yes, there has been another universe around with consciousness in it. The kind of objectivity I adhere to is the one that acknowledges it as plausible that the external world continues when we who live now pass away as those before us. Not only that, there's also the view that this objectivity is independent of every single being in gathering information, knowledge or something about this world. You'll have to take this rather short answer from me. There is something on Wikipedia and Internet Encycl. of Philosophy.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:49 pm
What choice does one have? If there is no consciousness around to say what is going on, what is one supposed to do? I guess you make theories of what has taken place according to the few leads you have. Instead of a new universe, perhaps one can imagine the Viking spacecraft surviving all of humanity and then life, consciousness somewhere else in the universe captures the spacecraft. This other consciousness will then have sufficient reason of objectivity to assume some other consciousness that's been us or some other form. I'm not going into some position to say that with consciousness terminated whatsoever in the universe and never to arise again, that one is supposed to say something about this universe. This is unless one can make a kind of jump from one universe to another. I think this should be very clear and that it's stupid to be against that notion. You say: "...existence of reality is dependant upon human perception?" At least the perception of a consciousness able to continue the story, I say! Good? Objectivity in itself isn't very interesting as a subject.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:58 am
This objectivity is understood in the sense that the reality is not dependent on any single person continuously so until the hypothetical point where there is no consciousness around and beyond the possibility for new consciousness to emerge. I think this is the common notion of objectivity if one is to say that there is such at all.
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:18 pm
I've added some more work to these Comments on...
"...possibly effecting one's own salvation. Consequently, let's look at abortion again. What if two parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply for abortion because there are factors that speak strongly for and against as well as the indeterminate status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain function and emotional function when the procedure is carried out? Thus, abortion for these two parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric" decision, yet respected by either party in companionship without guilt!"
"...possibly effecting one's own salvation. Consequently, let's look at abortion again. What if two parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply for abortion because there are factors that speak strongly for and against as well as the indeterminate status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain function and emotional function when the procedure is carried out? Thus, abortion for these two parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric" decision, yet respected by either party in companionship without guilt!"
[Edit, 10.05.2010:] I've written something like this earlier on this forum: It should be a fundamental belief that morality/ethics is to respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus, as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this respect, a general starting point. But I'd like to add (both here and on my webiste) that - Rationality in this sense is nothing mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great on IQ-tests, having a fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or great working performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to speak! [End of edit.]
Post subject: Re: Comment on Companions in Guilt PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:58 pm
I'm thinking about adding the following to the Ethical Objectivity (on my website(s)): There are (at least) two kinds of Rationality that it's fair to speak of. One is the rationality according to function, being the way you apply your mind to whatever problems, practical or intellectual. The other one is rationality as in being of good mental health, being well-developed. This is a writing for removing any religious notion to the word Rationality and thus the system of Rationality may seem reasonable to everyone. I'm in doubt whether I. Kant has meant any religiousness at all with his "kingdom of ideas". People have interpreted it this way, but I can't see that there's a single factual instance of this in his text. Quite the opposite, I think he thinks that the common person is able to make clever thoughts, to take part in the "kingdom of ideas". I find this a much more charitable reading of him and it makes him look better too!
Post subject: Re: Psychoanalysis is Quantum Mechanics PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:19 pm
I think I agree with "Psychoanalysis is Quantum Mechanics", but it's a long way yet to properly get there in the sense of putting one's head into a machine a get an accurate evaluation of one's mind. You wish to take note of the latest epigenetics that lies very much in this vein, being a possible stage to the heading of this thread.
Post subject: A Suggestion for Economical Arrangement for Afghanistan PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:50 am
This is just a meager suggestion, but it "might" be an idea to set up a kind of amnesty for the opium/narcotic pup farmers. In that one acknowledge the economic importance of the opium trade, one gives an estimate of its economical impact. Further, one can organise an umbrella/"funnel" corporation on a semi-secret level that gathers all the opium/drug farmers into a pharmaceutical arrangement. Call it whatever you want, "Relief for Opium Trade, Afghanistan" or something! In this way, farmers get the exact money they should have and one gets access to the best picture of the problem, its financial severity or the exact challenge one is facing in getting this removed as far as the pharmaceutical industry doesn't need it. So obviously, this can work in parallel with other economic aid efforts for Afghanistan in making the progress that is needed there for all other aspects, the usual bla, bla, bla... What is your thought on it? Doom and gloom?
Post subject: Re: Are mothers better at parenting? PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:23 pm
Mothers have the head-start of 9 months of labour thus the extra "bonding" that may be in place.
This can make them more apt to pick up worries of the baby, at least in the first years.
I think both parents add unique qualities to parenting, being father and mother, and consequently I'm not sure if I can answer the question in any good manner.
This can make them more apt to pick up worries of the baby, at least in the first years.
I think both parents add unique qualities to parenting, being father and mother, and consequently I'm not sure if I can answer the question in any good manner.
Post subject: Re: Crude Poetic Justice? PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:11 pm
China may really be winner on taking humanity to the next level, having had such imminent difficulties to its throat that it advances from there and past the old, decadent sinners of the west! Go China! Almost as I see the croaching tiger, hidden dragon running past my vision!
Post subject: Re: Are Humans evil? PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:22 pm
I almost think that our notion of Good and Evil is a good reason itself for believing in (Natural) God. And then you have the beautiful infinity and meaning along with the deficiencies of science such as existence, pre-Big-Bang and the rest. No, humans are basically good, says Scientology!
Post subject: Re: NO MORE WAR PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:00 pm
Be nice to the Germans, the one of the main drivers behind the peace project of EU! That said, I think "No more war" is going to be reality very soon (10-20 years time, even for the civil wars)! You should note there are no (active) wars between 2 or more (civilised states) developing or developed states. I think this is historic. Just think of the brutal slaughters of the tribal times when I think tribal wars erupted quite so often, what kind of anxieties isn't that! It must've been dreadful back then! Now, more than 90 % of the population is relatively well and with good prospects (don't be too harsh on me, I haven't checked the latest poverity numbers and those living without basic necessities).
Post subject: Re: Spiritual Philosophy PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 9:53 am
There are certainly general views that gather under the umbrella of spirituality and if you don't fit into one I suggest you invent your own branch. I almost have done that myself, but then I've discovered Scientology and the need has been quenched thereby.
Post subject: Re: Better to live like you will die one day or live forever? PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:21 am
Is it not possible to go for a healthy functional life for as long as possible? Perhaps, in this way, you get to support your family better as you enter old age... After-life takes care of itself, but ethical living should be determinant on it...
Post subject: Re: who is your favorite female philosopher? PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:29 am
I think I add to this thread by giving my vote to Christine Korsgaard who is a specialist in Ethics, it seems. I haven't read much from her, but it's a name I've picked up at least. I can possibly also mention Lady Conway who has been in correspondence with Leibniz and [Edit:] Lady Ada Lovelace with Charles Babbage. Elizabeth Anscombe can also be worth having one's mind to, being the inventor of Consequentialism. I'll check out some more female authors and see if I'll add more to this post. It's worthwhile to encourage diversity in philosophy as a virtue of its own. To have the reports from as many perspectives as possible, giving that they add value to the field of philosophy.
Post subject: Re: hell is coming? PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2010 11:06 pm
I don't really understand Sartre on this point because Heaven is other people as well. The conclusion must be that "some other people and natural disasters are hell" and "some other people and nature are heaven"!
Post subject: Re: hell is coming? PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:08 pm
And don't you forget the other 3 personalities, Leviathan, Satan and Lucifer... boohoo... "I've seen the future, brother! It is murder!" L. Cohen!
Post subject: Re: Anyone got any solutions? PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2010 9:49 am
I suggest you (they) can pick up an activating interest like the one of reading (from the library, which is cheap). They can also try to think of new projects that can self-employ them. It's just to start somewhere, I guess. Delve in an interest that maintains who you are and get you to the next level...
Post subject: Re: Philosophical Confusion and Mental Illness. PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 10:07 am
I'm willing to agree with this. Throwing oneself into ideas and frameworks that are either flawed or beyond one's full grasp is certainly foolish and should be dangerous to one's health!
Examples:
Followers of the political beliefs of Nazi-regime.
To be morally ignorant may also be dangerous.
I don't think that Freudians are so fortunate either.
Generally, I think also of people who follow relativistic or absurdist philosophies may also enter your argument.
Examples:
Followers of the political beliefs of Nazi-regime.
To be morally ignorant may also be dangerous.
I don't think that Freudians are so fortunate either.
Generally, I think also of people who follow relativistic or absurdist philosophies may also enter your argument.
Thanks for the topic. You probably know of Karl Popper and his critical examination of philosophies he has been thinking of as dangerous, but I mention this for others still the same (if not for you).
Post subject: Re: Is Irrationality An Illness? PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:39 am
I'd say irrationality is indeed an illness, but it may not be properly conceived this way. My sense is that children are the most insanely rational people there are. They flow along the course of their existence. As they grow up and the world picture gets more complex, mistakes seep into their worlds, hence irrationality, if not outright insanity, then at least delusion. My view is that rationality can be achieved to a great extent and that perfection lies at this destination. I think many people are pretty much to greater degrees there already. But surely, the description of such is still missing, I suppose. What the future will bring...
Post subject: Re: democracy PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:38 pm
I've posted on some other forum that the Soviet Union has been marked by two greatly bad ideas that have contributed to its fall and those are Atheism and Communism. In this light, I think it's great that USA and other modern countries encourage religiousness to go hand in hand with democracy. This is indeed a fine topic. I'll think of some more.
Post subject: Re: How To: Argue Philosophically PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:39 pm
You can also agree with an argument and see if you can improve it. Or you can agree to it for your own sake!
Post subject: Re: Is GOD Really Dead? PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:56 am
I think God of the bible is a self-refuting one and therefore doesn't represent any credible belief to, say, a Deist like myself. I do, however, pursue a natural God of God in its possible way of being if there's a God at all and I think this is much more meaningful than being stuck up in dogmatism. The idea of a possible natural God is still nice to think about and to wonder (and write) what the characteristics of such a God can be.
Post subject: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 am
From my blog, today, http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/: "Europe should be conscious about floating university projects and other state managed activities like big library projects into profitable, successful companies, dominating at least the European scene! Europeana can thus become a nice Amazon/Google by offering payment solution to some of its registered items where this is relevant. One should remember that Altavista has once upon time been a state managed activity of USA and that its search technology has helped the IT students of the founders of Google to set their enterprise into action! Bill Gates has also been a student of technology benefitting from university research into the computing processor technology. It's well known that the business life in USA is well entwined with university activities and we in Europe should duplicate and assimilate!"
Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 6:25 pm
Europe seems to be more slow in developing their business out of what should be blatant possibilities. Instead we discuss endlessly politics and the neighbours' daily lives. So we should cut down on the insignificant (incl. TV-time) and cherish the activities where the academic and the companies/business go together (not to forget other subjects like philosophy, but they are less significant and they should be recognised as such. For how long can you justify thinking about time?). So, yes, I think that making the point of the origins of Microsoft, Google, Intel/AMD and the lot (incl. Biochemical business) is to do service to people and paying the respect to what should be a Great Europe! Charles Babbage has lived in England (London?) and yet it's the U.S. Americans who get away with the processor-technology!!! Is there nobody who finds this weird? Europe should be biggest in Europe!!
Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 1:08 am
John wrote: When was AltaVista a US "state managed activity"? I admit I'm wrong on this. It appears that Altavista has been developed outside Academia. I can still maintain however, that academic efforts and learning have been crucial pre-cursors to Altavista even if they've managed to develop it privately. John wrote: And what's the significance of Bill Gates to the argument, especially as he dropped out of University? I don't know how much Bill Gates has learnt in his college/university year(s), but hasn't he connected with another fellow there with whom he founded Micro-Soft? Google is still, though, a very important example. It also appears to be more difficult to come from no education and make an enterprise as opposed to having the academic background. There are loads of examples that enterprises have grown out of the university labs and become very successful enterprises so I don't think I'd like to discuss any principled dichotomy of university vs. private lead company development/incubator activities. John wrote: Are you suggesting that European universities should seek to spin off commercially successful corporations? Yes, definitely!! And also become more primed in doing this primarily, leaving significantly lesser funding to subjects of more esoteric character (and less profitable). That is: cut the fat! John wrote: Or that Universities are the answer to competing with successful American ones? Yes, this also. As we lag behind in important technologies, we should actively seek to educate expertise and knowledge base in these areas, primarily by the use of universities. I think this is the only answer. Europe is 500 M people, why should we lag behind in anything? We have some of the deepest consistent academic traditions and yet we fail to be on top. We should regulate so that European start-ups are given the proper chances rather than arguing over the efforts until it comes to nought! So: stop internal power-struggle and replace it with merit-reward and get the factors whatever these may be, incl. regulation, set in one direction!
Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 1:27 am
Arising_uk wrote:
"You appear to think that there is a 'European' academic system?"
I do at least think that EU universities are connected and that European universities also share the important factor of geographical proximity. I strongly believe in geographical loyalty and I think people are most loyal to the surroundings where they live and that this loyalty gets "weaker" the further removed you are from this place.
"You appear to think that there is a 'European' academic system?"
I do at least think that EU universities are connected and that European universities also share the important factor of geographical proximity. I strongly believe in geographical loyalty and I think people are most loyal to the surroundings where they live and that this loyalty gets "weaker" the further removed you are from this place.
Arising_uk wrote:
"And that there are 'european' companies?"
Every company that has a (headquarter) base in Europe is indeed European! Now, the companies that have their headquarters in Europe is more European than the former and the European companies that are both owned by European investors and headquartered are even more European than these. I think it's reasonable to also see this in degrees of activity. Many people probably see Opel as European yet it's owned by Ford and I also believe it has most of its activity and assets in Europe, so there you go. But, definitely, I think there are European companies, no doubt about it.
"And that there are 'european' companies?"
Every company that has a (headquarter) base in Europe is indeed European! Now, the companies that have their headquarters in Europe is more European than the former and the European companies that are both owned by European investors and headquartered are even more European than these. I think it's reasonable to also see this in degrees of activity. Many people probably see Opel as European yet it's owned by Ford and I also believe it has most of its activity and assets in Europe, so there you go. But, definitely, I think there are European companies, no doubt about it.
Arising_uk writes:
"And a Europe that is anything other than a political gathering of Nations?"
Yes, Europe is also a natural geographical area, most excellently signified by the European Union and possibly also the Euro. There are upcoming questions of adding Turkey and Israel into the EU that may blur this picture, but at least EU consists of only/largely European countries and will probably continue to do so until Utopia, if not forever.
"And a Europe that is anything other than a political gathering of Nations?"
Yes, Europe is also a natural geographical area, most excellently signified by the European Union and possibly also the Euro. There are upcoming questions of adding Turkey and Israel into the EU that may blur this picture, but at least EU consists of only/largely European countries and will probably continue to do so until Utopia, if not forever.
Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:53 am
John writes:
"It sounds to me that your making a plea for the value of education rather than anything else and as I'm not aware of any respectable arguments against education as such then I'm still not sure what point you think you've made here."
I believe universities can become more active instruments in achieving domination of the European market and this is the point. This is made on the background of OS companies, only Microsoft (if not Oracle, Sun and IBM Cons. Serv. on server market also), processor market, only AMD and Intel, internet store market, only Ebay and Amazon and finally the search market, Yahoo with Altavista, Bing and Google. All of these are U.S. American! I have nothing against U.S.A whatsoever, I just suggest one should spread chance and competance around so that every industry is proportionately represented around the world, serving the justice to people everywhere, not only in Europe with respects to these particular industries!
"It sounds to me that your making a plea for the value of education rather than anything else and as I'm not aware of any respectable arguments against education as such then I'm still not sure what point you think you've made here."
I believe universities can become more active instruments in achieving domination of the European market and this is the point. This is made on the background of OS companies, only Microsoft (if not Oracle, Sun and IBM Cons. Serv. on server market also), processor market, only AMD and Intel, internet store market, only Ebay and Amazon and finally the search market, Yahoo with Altavista, Bing and Google. All of these are U.S. American! I have nothing against U.S.A whatsoever, I just suggest one should spread chance and competance around so that every industry is proportionately represented around the world, serving the justice to people everywhere, not only in Europe with respects to these particular industries!
John writes:
"Again, this seems a bit confused to me. Is this really just a plea for universities to focus on areas that are in market demand? I.e. cut subjects like philosophy?"
Yes! I'm sure the "soft" subjects can be arranged in a cheaper way insofar as they are necessary beyond universities. That is, either they cut them thin and suffer the loss of "production" or they cut them thin and arrange for more network based approaches, possibly maintaining "production"/competance.
"Again, this seems a bit confused to me. Is this really just a plea for universities to focus on areas that are in market demand? I.e. cut subjects like philosophy?"
Yes! I'm sure the "soft" subjects can be arranged in a cheaper way insofar as they are necessary beyond universities. That is, either they cut them thin and suffer the loss of "production" or they cut them thin and arrange for more network based approaches, possibly maintaining "production"/competance.
For your last comment:
You should also note that 6/7 of these are petroleum companies (I'm uncertain about Sinopec) and are thus on the outside of this perspective. The Dutch company is in banking and banking has always been the most profitable, but you can argue that the Wal-Mart retailing is also traditionally profitable. I also think it may be useful to instead focus on richest people.
You should also note that 6/7 of these are petroleum companies (I'm uncertain about Sinopec) and are thus on the outside of this perspective. The Dutch company is in banking and banking has always been the most profitable, but you can argue that the Wal-Mart retailing is also traditionally profitable. I also think it may be useful to instead focus on richest people.
Otherwise, I like to restate that I call for more aggression on use of university (and regulation, for letting the projects into market) for levelling deficiencies on a regional level on both technology and competance, possibly in other areas.
Although lately, I've been pleased to know that GB is expanding the universities, allowing more students and conseq. graduates.
Although lately, I've been pleased to know that GB is expanding the universities, allowing more students and conseq. graduates.
Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 3:35 pm
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10
It says 63,41% for the XP system out of the 9X% of the total Windows/Microsoft share!
Remarkable!
It says 63,41% for the XP system out of the 9X% of the total Windows/Microsoft share!
Remarkable!
Last time I've checked the Wine project, it's been abandoned! You need to give me a reliable source for this one.
John,
For the Altavista issue, it's certainly the fact that DARPA developed the first internet and hasn't this at least come out the doors of some university? If we go far enough back...
For the Altavista issue, it's certainly the fact that DARPA developed the first internet and hasn't this at least come out the doors of some university? If we go far enough back...
Post subject: Re: Business in Europe! PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 6:38 am
No, I mean the post you haven't replied to! DARPA isn't a university, yes! Still, its foundation may lie in university activities, eg. department of technology or India Institute of Technology or thereof. Also, as you write, the (D)ARPANET has been connected to universities in its bare beginning, being an issue of university activity, afterall.
No comments:
Post a Comment