The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 4

Post subject: There's Something About Godel by Berto Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:15 pm

There's Something About Godel by Francesco Berto is not a book for introduction to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem!

As it says: "The title takes seriously Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, who, in their classic book Godel's Proof, have claimed that such a proof is an "amazing intellectual symphony.""

Another quote: "The second part is thoroughly and unashamedly influenced by Godel's Theorem: An Incompleteness Guide to Its Use and Abuse" - 2005/Torkel Franzen. I'm heavily sceptical to this kind of book that is best left to people who like to read about Godel and all its funny contexts.

[Edit, 16.08.2010:] By "heavily sceptical" I mean that application of Godel's Theorem should be done by certified Logicians and that exposing stupidity (made by others) has very limited use. I've applied some speculation concerning Godel by asserting "Godel Incompleteness" for this particular incompleteness and also suggest that Godel's Theorem (under Phil. of Religion) may suggest the impossibility to get knowledge of God no matter what and that it's reasonable that we don't know God even if God does not exist! Shoot at me all you want, but I'm not serious enough to be criticised in such a book by these two issues until they are dealt with by this certified Logician or these certified Logicians as serious (and valid) claims/concerns. I hope this relieves you of this particular "scepticism" (because I'm not sceptical to the work of Godel whatsoever unless I can find a good angle to attack from and make it valid/plausible from this certified Logician's point of view, implying that I might become a certified Logician in the far future, hypothetically! [End of edit.]

The book also assumes the knowledge of Typographical Number Theory as it appears in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. So, I guess that it's recommended that one buys both Hofstadter's book and Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman's book.

So I'm disappointed with this book in the way it presents the Godel's Theorem because I've expected that it would present the logical structure and the logical proof in its entirety and together rather than the scarce logical notation that's spread everywhere in the first part of the book.

So it's half seriousness and half comedy, you can take a look yourself, but for myself, I'll be looking for a better presentation to the G. Theorem and throw a glance to this book to see how this review justifies or needs correction to bow for its virtue.

Post subject: Re: There's Something About Godel by Berto Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:10 am

At least I don't like the set-up in comparison to another excellent Logics book: The Logic Book 4th ed. Bergmann, Moor and Nelson (2004).

I also note that Richard Jeffrey touches on it by his Formal Logic - Its Scope and Limits 3rd ed. (1991).
(Chapter 8 and Chapter 9, specifically)

Post subject: Opinions on Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness - Logics/PoMa Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:23 pm

By me, from http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#OGTI. Over Logics and Philosophy of Mathematics.
Quote:
It's my opinion that Godel's Theorems on this matter make either unreasonable assumptions on axioms or try to say too much, particularly on a system's axioms which may themselves, ultimately be hinged on a nature of infinity. It seems strange to me that Godel's "Incompleteness" is about not being able to prove the axioms from within the given system. In my opinion, every "idiot" goes only for consistent and Godel "incomplete" systems. This should be clear! I see no problem with the descriptive power of this system as a consequence of Godel "incompleteness".
If Godel's two theorems are to kick in, the human viewpoint would have to be completely different and the ontological status of infinity soundly removed, but this is clearly not the case today.
The theorems of Incompleteness should thus be renamed Theorems of Non-Self-Reference or Theorems of Non-Tautology.

Drawing from the Philosophy of Science, I see the creation of systems like non-Euclidean geometry and Fuzzy Logic, being only two examples, as sliding in nicely with existing systems and this should also be kept in mind when you regard the whole story of various systems through the course of human evolution.

(Wild) questions:
Are the Godel theorems of incompleteness contradictions? Are they begging for the impossible, implicitly?
Are the theorems controversial?
What kind of system is it the theorems ask for?
I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?

For educational purposes: How do you build something without having a world to build something in first? Why question the building materials you've selected when you're making a building? How do you prove your "Universe of Discourse"? I sense there's something "sick" about imposing a requirement of being able to prove the establishment of the world that's going to support your descriptions. What I'm saying is that Godel's "incompleteness" is negligible as opposed to other possible meanings of "incompleteness". Originally written 07.02.2010 and 11.02.2010.

What do you think? I'm thinking it's a small victory to identify the Godel's "incompleteness" as just that kind of incompleteness and not the "ordinary" incompleteness that "normal" people think of.

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness - Logics/PoMa Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:06 pm

[Edit:] Isn't there a possibility that Hilbert's 2nd problem is resurrected by naming the kind of incompleteness Godel presents as Godel "incompleteness"?

Hilbert's 2nd problem is to "Prove that the axioms of arithmetic are consistent."

[Edit2:] I'd like to add that Godel's "incompleteness" can be combined with Tarski to be Tarski-Godel "incompleteness"-"undefinability"! This point is modified thanks to the reading of Raymond Smullyan on Wikip. where Smullyan refers readers on to Tarski in being fascinated by Godel! Although being uncertain about both, I'm now on some material of Godel, at least, and work will continue.

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness - Logics/PoMa Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Added 17.03.2010, Hilbert's 2nd problem:
I also find these 2 possible interpretations of Hilbert's 2nd Problem. The first is the one that is answered by Godel that axioms can't be proved by the system they establish, but the 2nd one is that the scope in some future may be prove to be inconsistent by the very application of these axioms. I've gotten the word that one of Euclid's axioms has been either proven to be false or to be excessive and it's in this line of thought I'm thinking of the 2nd interpretation of Hilbert's Problem and it's possible resurrection.

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness - Logics/PoMa Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:35 pm

I'll look deeper into it. Hopefully, this may be a good example. Either way, I think the Riemann alternation from traditional Euclidean geometry provides an angle to this Tarski-Godel issue in light of Hilbert's 2nd Problem.

Is there any possibility you can get something definite from a mathematician friend? At least, I'll investigate more thoroughly.

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness - Logics/PoMa Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:18 pm

Raymond Smullyan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_smullyan Note this: While a Ph.D. student, Smullyan published a paper in the 1957 Journal of Symbolic Logic showing that Godelian incompleteness held for formal systems considerably more elementary than that of Godel's 1931 landmark paper. The contemporary understanding of Godel's theorem dates from this paper. Smullyan later made a compelling case that much of the fascination with Godel's theorem should be directed at Tarski's theorem, which is much easier to prove and equally disturbing philosophically.

Then:
The specific Tarski "undefinability": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_indefinability_theorem All of the text on this page should be relevant.

And the doors open...

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness - Logics/PoMa Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:02 pm

I'm thinking about adding this to my website that takes my thoughts further on the topic and my angle to it:

(I've visited Wikip. on Tarski some time ago and then it says that Tarski has proved both geometry and algebra to be both complete and consistent. The page seems heavily edited today, 02.07.2010 and it doesn't say so anymore. So, this is a pause for me and an angle I need to investigate if I'm to get somewhere with my writing on this. This is just a notice for what follows.)

* Geometry - Complete and fulfills all descriptive tasks.
* Algebra - Complete and fulfills all descriptive tasks.
* Arithmetics - Incomplete and fulfills all descriptive tasks (yet missing its Godel "completeness" by Tarski).
Further:
* Language - Incomplete, I think, and fulfills all descriptive tasks (yet missing its Godel "completeness" by Tarski).
* HDM and science - Incomplete, I think, and fulfills all descriptive tasks (yet missing its Godel "completeness" by Tarski).

Also, in the light of all this, we have the issue of computability. Can everything be computed? Can one set up a complete computer system that replaces the human being as the scientist and what have you, except its functioning of consciousness? What is "completeness" or "incompleteness" in this regard?

This also goes for the semantic/syntactic divide. If we can replicate the human reasoning by computing, then what is left of this "semantic" ability?

It should be exciting to see how this develops, but it will demand quite a lot of effort and time.

Well, project is ongoing. Please, be patient. This is one of my weakest writings and I lack (a lot of) knowledge on the issue.

This is the update for now!

Post subject: Re: Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:10 pm

Indeed, Thomas Sowell looks very good! Thanks for bringing him up! To raise the issue that intellectuals have the "duty" to be more than an expert in their field is well done! The leading stars ought perhaps to be leading stars to the full extent. He also says in the interview that being an intellectual and go outside your domain of expertise may be to step outside a cliff.

So, so, I've taken notice of this man!

Post subject: Re: This speaks to the purpose of the Bible. Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:55 am

Funny to call OT a God of hate because at this point Christians get their 10 commandments (something far more valuable than the "love your next of kin as you love yourself")!

One thought: may it be that "you shall not have any other God than me" can be interpreted as "you shall worship truth"?

Post subject: Re: This speaks to the purpose of the Bible. Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:08 pm

Because I think they give a reasonably good foundation for family life at that point in time and that they give no room for deviation!

Post subject: Re: Destiny, Chance and Free Will Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:44 pm

I've voted for "No, due to both randomness and free will". This randomness may be underdetermined and thus illusionary.

I do, however, strongly believe in Free Will as explained in another thread under Metaphysics.

Unless one can prove that the consciousness including Free Will is determined, then there's more likelihood of there being Free Will because of these arguments (among others) that are referred to above.

I can't see any reason why the universe should contain randomness if or when it's completely understood. Therefore, I stay with Free Will and Determination/Fatalism as the main contenders for belief in this subject.

When making a decision, it's indeed your responsibility to collect the depth of information and priorities you want to act on! If you cut this information short, this is a decision underlying your main decision focus... So Free Will... Fall to ignorance or be Pro-active...!

Post subject: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:52 am

Over-population, that is the greatest problem of earth-ecology today!

You can consider ecological energy-supply, transport, housing, grown foods, seafood and the rest, but aren't we overlooking the very source itself - the HUGE amount of people?

Hypothetically, if we can snap our fingers and reduce world population to 500 million, think of all the problems it will solve! All that is remaining if that happens is to travel around and collect DNA of all sorts of plants and animals.

I seriously think the world should adopt the Chinese one-child-policy. Nature is certainly relieved by that. We should organize some kind of activist group to push UN into addressing the problem. Anyone?

Post subject: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:18 am

Food crisis:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/globalfoodcrisis/

http://wfp.org/english/

The situation is probably not going to be better next year or in 10yrs or in 20yrs and we are becoming more and more people.

Here is some population data from UN: http://esa.un.org/unpp/

Where I live, the number of people is most likely going to be stable. I am also happy I live in the wealthy parts of the world as food prices rise.

The future is going to be exciting in a negative way, possibly.

Post subject: Re: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:14 am

I wish to actualise this topic again.
I've written two times about reducing world population as the most important ecological initiative that can be sought. 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).

My main motivation for bringing this up again, is to get the UN attention to it and action on it! I've tried to posting this issue on Greenpeace Norway's Facebook-page, but there's little response even there! Who can one write to in order to generate some initiative?

BBC has written about it as The Elephant in the Room and now lately as Unsustainable Water Demand in Britain. Do you want to add information? Have your views on this subject changed?

One BBC report is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8628832.stm.

Post subject: Re: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:32 pm

I still think the UN can be used to raise the issue and be used as an expert arena for discussion.

There are good reasons for making each country (territory of jurisdiction, also sharing culture) to impose a different regime of economic incentives, ie. support 1. as today, support 2. less than today and raise tax / impose economic sanction for the 3. and onwards. This is certainly possible in the developed countries today.

I also recall from a report from Africa (BBC or CNN) that one could encourage fewer kids for families, by promoting the message that women who have fewer kids become more happy, are likely to gain higher education and be in greater control of own life.

Conclusion is that this may look good for both developing and developed countries. On with condoms or in with the contraception pills! Future probably wants fewer kids and more quality life!

Post subject: Re: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:59 pm

We can still value wetland for its role in nature and being a habitat for all sorts of animals and plants and what have you.

What the user by the name weehen, is proposing is something in the line of Prince Charles of UK that we pay a utility tax for preventing the rain forests to be chopped down. So the same again: the rain forests don't exist because we can bungle in it, but rather because it represents a value to the Earth and life in general. I'm not sure if the rain forests' role in the cycle of life is properly determined yet, but it stands firm in representing bio-diversity, something we can all agree to that represents a value from the human view point as we are the caretakers and directors of the Earth!

This discussion looks lively now, thank you all for your replies and keep writing! Whatever it is in this theme... literature, news from the net or elsewhere, new thoughts or insights... it's all welcome!

Post subject: Re: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:25 pm

John wrote:
"Undoubtedly not but I'm not going to randomly conjure a meaningless figure like the 500 million quoted in the OP."

First, the OP calls this a hypothetical number so I guess you can consider it contestable. It's not meaningless either because with this number you can plausibly argue for a diverse human population that has the ability to generate meaningful enterprises and activities of the LHC scope or whatever. This number of people also, in plentiful, allows for a flourishing "free" nature that is self-regulated to a large extent. This seems to escape your "critical" assessment.

Post subject: Re: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:54 pm

Some historical population data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

You should note, 500 mill. people equals the level of 1500 CE (425 mill.) to 1600 CE (545 mill.) and 3,4 billion people equals the level of 1960 CE (3020 mill.) to 1970 CE (3700 mill.).

Who thinks of there being too few people in the 60s (1960-1970)? Now that we connect in such plentiful way, the question of too few people is almost incomprehensible or inconceivable, realistically speaking!

Post subject: Re: Ecology or Deep Ecology or Ecosophy Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:36 pm

I've posted the essentials (my postings only, sorry) of this topic on WWF discussion forum and I've been referred to this link: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/population_growth/.

I think it's fair to say that most of the environmental org.s are on it, it just hasn't come into the mainstream media in a serious manner yet! I'm going to make my input where it's appropriate and we'll see where this is going!

Hopefully, people realise that country-wise discussion (and UN-wise) is the way to go about this, making people see the value of being fewer people!

Post subject: Re: Are Video Games Art? Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:00 pm

IMO, there are clearly art aspects to video games, but how to exhibit? And if you sell it, does the old computer come with it? It seems kind a strange to buy video-games as art, but there's an option. You can buy the art behind the video games. Print out posters of the animated characters or so...

Post subject: Re: An Attack on Indexicality Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:37 pm

To write that "My view on theory of language is that language is based upon use so there is no underlying logic that will explain all instances of any particular set of words." doesn't mean "...indexicals being utterances..."

If indeed the indexical is supposed to be essential it must possible to write it! I think this is most certain. Even if John Perry emphasises the aspect of utterances, it doesn't take away "The Essential Indexical" unless he writes so!

Post subject: Re: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:10 pm

A small thing:
chaz wyman wrote:
"The analogy is false. Truth is not a series of units to be collected."

It may be! Just as much as you might discover (if not the GMO) a green raven on this planet or another, in the past or in the future! It may be just as useful to collect data-series as discovering laws of nature. Besides, a single law of nature may also be considered a Truth and thus a part of data-series of natural laws! Yes?

Post subject: Re: Objectivity - Building a model of reality Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:13 pm

You should have in mind that the scientist may have laid down a programming beforehand that may be conceived as unreasonable by this panel of tasters. Thus we are no further, necessarily, to truth concerning bitterness!

However, we can move on and map each taster on this scientist's scale and each person may get a revelation, but the objective, in its strong sense, may lie hidden forever. It depends! Fx. one of the latest Nobel-prizes concerns the nose and our ability to perceive scents. If this is to happen in respect to the tongue, we may move up the scale to Truth!

Post subject: Re: Objectivity - Building a model of reality Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:44 am

I've written elsewhere about this notion of "objective"! It's perfectly clear that you can't align yourself with the roots of the tree to see a tree objectively or that you can take some mental place within an atom as a quant to see an atom objectively. We are clearly confined to be human beings. The point of "objective" is rather this: when something is objective, it is valid for everyone. At the same time something is declared objective, it is also subject to the best scrutinies and alleged to survive these! So then, when something is objective, it is valid for all of human kind and it is timeless!

Intersubjective is used by some to be a more objective standard of conforming to what is human and that humans can only agree with one another of what is true, thus intersubjective. A more seldom interpretation is one of mediated "subjectivity" where intersubjective can mean agreement between a set of people within culture or ethnicity, for example. Or that two crazy people can understand one another, but a normal person is beyond its understanding!

Clearly then, you get the three camps, subjectivists, intersubjectivists (a kind of self-declared best objectivists) and objectivists (who usually relate the objective to what can normally be agreed upon and captured by instruments of various kinds including cameras and audio equipment)!

Post subject: Re: Philosophy of the Greatest President Ever Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:48 am

Personally, I find Harry Truman to be a very smart US American President through all times! Even in despite of the Truman-doctrine...

Post subject: Re: Bullying in schools: Blown up by the liberal media. Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:16 pm

I just want to note that for kids, the bullying may be seen as a future ruin of life and a possible death threat!

It's in fact documented that kids commit suicides on the background of bullying. You should also remember that these are kids who are supposed to be full of life and optimism, startled from the wonders of life! Needless to say, suicide is therefore naturally opposite to that of the nature of being kids!

Post subject: Re: levels of consciousness.. how they fit? Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:38 am

Let me just insert that the notion of "soul" is indeed religious, whether because of some romantic psychologist or not, at least by convention! There's no way that consciousness and "soul" describe the same thing by this convention!

Post subject: Re: Is the War on Terrorism in fact the War on Drugs? Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:00 pm

Now that the war on terrorism is being limited to Afghanistan (with only 8 US American military casualties in Iraq in June), it should be noted that the war on drugs is a very serious business! Both in Mexico and Colombia where the main problem is exactly drugs (and drug culture?), the military is fighting alongside the police! Technically, that's a matter of state of emergency or civil unrest or civil war!

[Edit, 05.07.2010:]
Mexico: Since 1989 - "...began in earnest after the 1989 arrest of Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo who ran the cocaine business in Mexico.[25] There was a lull in the fighting during the late 1990s but the violence has steadily worsened since 2000."

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Mexican_Drug_War

Colombia: Since 1964/1966 or possibly 1948 - "The direct origins of the current conflict are usually dated to 1964/1966, while the remote origins would at least go back as far as 1948."

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_armed_conflict_%281964%E2%80%93present%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Colombia
[End of edit.]

I think people easily overlook this fact for some reason!

[Edit, 20.08.2010:] The greatest casualty rates are right there in the agriculture/drug-growing areas of Kandahar and Helmand. Traditionally, the mountain areas (and jungles) have been the toughest areas to fight guerilla, but this is rather flat. How so? Is it Europe and USA that needs to come off the needle (of heroin)? [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Scientific vs Philosophical Methods - From PF Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:11 pm

"The instance of where scientific and philosophical methods align is that of Naturalism. Otherwise, I'm with the list that has been made by Postmodern Beatnik in his post of 01/19/09 - 07:51 PM. I'd like to add to point 1 the making of invention of fitting descriptions and what else like that of fallibilism, locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary, performative, transcendence. I think you can get far by inventing an appropriate perfect description in one of the philosophical fields that may set the course for others to follow."

"About the philosophical method: I think philosophy today is all in the mind. Maybe you can draw on the results of sciences to make indications in your description or question, however, the speculation is a central theme and innovations of new angles and ideas are crucial toward the material of philosophy. You may be able to invent new areas in philosophy, but I find that incredibly hard. I'm satisfied with the classical questions for now. One project I have been thinking about, is to make an economic index in philosophy of science where you evaluate the impact of new scientific findings and express it in economic terms. In this way you may find the answer to your precision of evaluation which may not be bad. While scientists spend a lot of time designing experiments and working with engineers in this regard, philosophers innovate and evaluate the pure ideas that may lead to actual testing or normative standards. So words, words, words, that is all there is to philosophy."

Post subject: Re: Scientific vs Philosophical Methods - From PF Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:48 pm

Arising_uk writes:
"As Imp points out, Science arose from the Philosophers who decided a set of metaphysical questions had been settled, i.e. there is a world that obeys lawlike laws."

You may not even need the concept of "laws" to exist for science to be interesting and still this set-up is valid. All you need may only be regularities and consistencies... Even today one is arguing over the existence of "natural laws" and most certainly the metapysics.

There are good possibilities today, as far as we've come, for throwing philosophy overboard and sail without it while maintaining "le bon sens" for how science is to be conducted. But of course, there are other significant issues with philosophy that should be cared for like ethics and it may also, on top of this, prove time-saving to do the philosophy rather than the reverse-engineered generalisations from science.

You have, though, history on your side. It would be hard-fought to conduct science without logic for example! And I'm not bothering to speculate over the importance of philosophy in hindsight!

Post subject: Re: Psychological Affects of Mass Murder Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:36 pm

Not that I'm an expert, but if find striking differences in torturing kids and people in general to death for the entertainment and pleasure and being in Iraq to fight against "possible future terrorism" and indeed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the Nazi attempted genocide of Jews.

On an individual level, the torture is far more repulsive! While in these war-like situations the individual responsibility is much more obscure... Like in spraying the enemy who is taking cover among civilians, to being the simple prison guard in a concentration camp or being part of a group that by "handcuff/coercive" arrangement effectuate mass executions... Go investigate!!

Post subject: Re: Ontological Claims as Epistemological Constraints Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:18 am

Generally, I'm very skeptical to mixing the disciplines. In this case that underlying metaphysics, ie. ontology, is supposed to "govern" views in another discipline, ie. epistemology. You seem to pay little attention why physicalism (materialism is better word, I think) is chosen as a kind ontology when one's knows very well how much better the case is when you have the actual physical expression of something before you, rather than "souls" that "only Lisa Williams is able to see".

There is absolutely no problem in a physicalist who expands the investigation to look for "particles" that enable fx. out-of-body experiential views when the brain is clinically dead, but, of course, the physicalist's kind of view must be to look for particles as "carriers" for this kind of view, if actually outside the body at all.

I hope you find this useful.

Post subject: Re: A. J. Ayer and a Divine Being Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:15 pm

Think about it! Having a silly head doctor there to decide or preside over one's entire philosophical legacy because of a whisper, even an unclear one! Hey, don't get me started!

Post subject: Suggestion for new words in the English language Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:51 am

I'd like to add the following words to the English language for identifying people less of character that are also neutral in sexual orientation sense (esp. f*ggots).

These are:
lewdo
s(h*t)-lewdo
snake-lewdo
s/m-lewdo
sado-lewdo
and finally
slewdo

All of these are in the line of "weirdo" which seems to be accepted as a term nowadays. Of course, lewd people are lewd, but throwing the "lewdo" may be an easier way of getting at it!

Any opinions? This is rather informal and humourus, but should provide the language for labelling the unwanted, disgusting and intolerable. Perhaps they can effectuate a nicer society as one wants to dodge such a label...

Post subject: Re: Suggestion for new words in the English language Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:28 pm

It can be useful to both try to change the actual person by this label or other, but also label people who can become a significant adversity to you later in life - as much as you like to name people dubious or criminal.

And these words are also meant for both males and females, not only males...

Post subject: Re: Suggestion for new words in the English language Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:56 pm

I just note that a victim "of desire" has no law on one's side while the victim of violence (presumably of the assault and not a participant of a fight-club) certainly has! It's normative in most cultures that one is able to control one's desires!

Besides, just as much you can say to people that they are this or that, lewd or ugly, is indeed equally logical to labelling someone by a new word like lewdo or slewdo or whatever. There's no good reason for abandoning a richness of words!

Post subject: Re: Suggestion for new words in the English language Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:06 pm

In its bare beginning they should turn to self-control! Beyond that I don't know if there are any good options (for them).

But an important part of this is exactly to make other people to properly label and thereby warn others about these people who are unable to control themselves and who are in self-decline!

So there you go... until Utopia (or a middle-way or its opposite). There's not much to tell other than this in this respect (of these new words).

Post subject: Re: Suggestion for new words in the English language Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:26 pm

Richard Baron writes:
"They may call me names, of course, but I may ignore them."
Absolutely correct! Also, as mentioned, who says that the words of fool, stupid, trash, whore, pimp, bum, despicable, coarse and so on aren't relevant when they are used? Of course they are!

Post subject: Re: Who are bigger wankers? Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:07 am

I've chosen "Anti-Israeli wankers" because it's intolerable to call for the destruction of a nation, a people. Of course, this is probably only in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and may not concern the incredibly radical views like the destruction of Israel, but I choose it still the same because this is not about choosing the existence of either people. It's about striking a fine line, finding harmony between the two!

Post subject: Argument Against Stupidity or Ethical Ignorance Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:52 am

It's both feasible and plausible that human kind is or has been capable of destroying the possibility of human life on Earth (by nuclear weapons, first and foremost). Such an act must be seen as stupid as it will definitely cut short a future of more intelligent and brighter situation for all of human kind (extremely: for this evolution or strand of human kind if not the same evolves around again). Thus stupidity is what possibly brings an end to humanity if anything! You must therefore look to it that you act intelligently!

Implicitly, by this argument, it is indeed an ethical imperative to be pro-active, to mind for your intelligence and to stand up to mental challenges so that you rise above the stupid for sure!

Post subject: Re: Argument Against Stupidity or Ethical Ignorance Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:50 pm

Dictionary.com:

stu·pid·i·ty
---/stupdti, styu-/ [stoo-pid-i-tee, styoo-]
–noun, plural -ties for 2.
1.
the state, quality, or fact of being stupid.
2.
a stupid act, notion, speech, etc.

Stupidity is certainly not only the acting against one's own intentions! Stupidity is also commonly to act against one's own good by some screwed up ideas!

Post subject: Re: Argument Against Stupidity or Ethical Ignorance Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:07 pm

So, yes, my recommendation is that everybody should improve on their intelligence and piss on the Bell Curve!

The Bell Curve:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277928369&sr=8-1.

Post subject: Godel's incompleteness of World's relation to God Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 7:58 pm

If Godel's incompleteness shows us the impossibility to prove God from the World, isn't this reasonable with our current situation of unknowing of God and our insufficiency to get there?

God is supposedly the creator of the World and is thus in a sense it's "axioms".

Maybe this is just another Godel-misuse, but you're welcome to read my comment on Godel in the Phil. of Science section.

[Edit, 17.05.2010:] There's actually a good angle of some of the same, but it takes Godel Incompleteness to be an indicator for God's existence. You can read it about it here:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/index.htm. Also, it's from 1994, so my addition here is certainly not novel, but I only point out the possibility of God in accordance with NDNID. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Godel's incompleteness of World's relation to God Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:53 am

You can also check out this link:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/god-and-godel-34906.html

His, Eiron's, link is begun Posted May 9, 2009 - 1:18 PM (as opposed to this, 16th May, 2010) and it starts: "Subject: God and Godel I am not a mathematician or philosopher, just a simple agnostic farmer but,... Do Gödel's incompleteness theorems indicate that we can never prove or disprove the existence of the "God"? Here is a simple explanation of his theorems I found online. "Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements." ~ William Denton Logic is a branch of mathematics. So, this seems to indicate to me that I can never use logic and reason to prove or disprove the existence of the "God", no matter how much I know. Am I right? Remember, I am a simple agnostic farmer (figuratively, I hate weeding). If true then atheist are "faithists" or "believers" along with the theists"." So I go straight ahead I just call it an impossibility, but I probably owe this thread above a good deal for starting this thread myself here on PN forum... I post this for sincerety.