Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 3

Post subject: Re: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:56 pm

Let me try it differently: Mike Strand wrote: "You ought to brush your teeth." Ought-less: There is a rule that says you are to regularly brush your teeth. So when it's time to brush your teeth, you brush them. According to this rule, you brush your teeth when it's time to do so and this time is now. However, there is no guarantee that you do just this.
*This is a version that follows the first post on this thread! Mike Strand wrote: "You ought to brush your teeth." Ought-less: There is a rule that says you are to work for a living. So when it's time to get work for a living, you take action get work for a living. According to this rule, you take action to get work for a living and you take this action do so now as you don't work for a living yet. However, there is no guarantee that you do just this.

Post subject: Re: Rephrasing Ought - Ought-less language Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:14 am

To remove "ought" from language, possibly, is a technicality to me, mind you, I'm still a Kantian Ethicist, through and through! It's fundamental then, in my opinion, that moral/ethical life is profitable all the time, if not directly, then certainly indirectly!

Post subject: A Kripkean Argument For Goatism Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:30 am

This is a criticism that I see as an attack on all religion, not only my own NDNID. The article is named "A Kripkean Argument For Goatism" by Bill Capra, published just very recently as Phil. Now, Issue 79.
It says that Bill Capra ruminates at the CHVR Institute. Can anyone provide me with a link to the CHVR Institute, please? I can't find it by either Yahoo or Google. Well, well. First he makes the fastest references to both Hilary Putnam and modern philosophy of language that I've experienced, claiming that its' reasonable that "Now surely Hilary Putnam was right to argue that cats might have turned out to be robots from Mars" and that "...has shown that there is no determinate difference between referring to a goat and referring to an undetached goat leg". I see this first and foremost as a joke! How are you supposed to go by a story of one person that's about "goat" and the story from another person that says "goat" too, when they in fact refer to very distinct objects! What is so plausible about calling everything a "goat" hence "Goatism"? For his conclusion it says "if the goatist thesis has the virtues of economy and explanatory power..."! Is calling everything "goat" really explanatory power? Isn't it exactly the opposite? When you level the whole world of everything that exists to some concept, fx. goat, it is supposed to represent explanatory power! I wonder how the teaching of the young goes! "No, my dear, this is a goat too! And that is a goat and that is a goat! And so on!" If there's anything in this article at all, it must be these references to Hilary Putnam and modern philosophy of language! At least, I'd like to see the references list and how Bill Capra can claim this to be "in many respects, the goatist thesis is an entirely commonsensical theory in its accordance with our ordinary modal intuitions"! Also, are my "nebulous feelings of metaphysical discomfort" supposed to be laid to rest as I hear the echoing word of "goat" in my head as I go to sleep? Metaphysics covers a lot of fields and to equate all of this with the simple word of "goat" is the sign of an ill developed sense of philosophy.

Post subject: Re: A Kripkean Argument For Goatism Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:28 pm

The Goatism fails to be anything at all, even though the mantra "Goatism" may be a good one in that zen-sense!

Post subject: Re: A Kripkean Argument For Goatism Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:53 pm

A funny note:
"A=A=A=A: anything equals anything equals anything. This is the way the reactive mind thinks, irrationally identifying thoughts, people, objects, experiences, statements, etc., with one another where little or no similarity actually exists. Everything is everything else. Mr. X looks at a horse, knows it's a house, knows it's a schoolteacher. So when he sees a horse he is respectful."
I must say it relates!

Post subject: Re: Death, the last great frontier Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:40 am

Just one question:
How can you definitely tell if a brain-damaged person is indeed limited as person from a soul? Isn't there a chance that the "soul"-world is in some senses always perfect and that the limitations of the body or brain not necessarily apply there?

Post subject: Epistemology of Logics Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:16 pm

Epistemology of Logics should be finished at the descriptive level before it enters the logical structure.
Thus a pink Sphinx, being a toy figure for children exists because there is such a toy, while the mythical Sphinx does not exist other than as a concept (of language, myths).
It's therefore wise to keep the Logical structure apart from the Epistemological task (that's completed before the assumptions enter the logical structure/argument).
I suspect there is a paper about to be published from the Philosophy Institute of University of Oslo.

Post subject: Re: Epistemology of Logics Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:56 pm

Davoz writes:
"(1) Taking account of currently live topics in epistemology, why would one suppose that any specific epistemological problem can or should be seen as "finished" (e.g. whether perceptions count non-inferentially as a priori, whether "justification" is necessary)? This seems analogous with the idea of the possibility of a "completed" ideal science."
The point is that your assertions containing epistemology is your responsibility apart from the logical argument/structure.
"(2) A specific object given to a child, through normative language use, may have a name ("pink Sphinx") conceptually equivalent to that of an imagined object (the "mythical Sphinx"). The ontological status of the toy object and that of the naming can be seen as different, but the argument from causation is surely wrong, suggesting that the concept is communicable because the toy is perceptible. How so?"
The ontology of the toy is definite as opposed to the metaphysical Sphinx which according to the myth may be able to do a lot of stuff, like flying, very much unlike the Sphinxes of Egypt.
"(3) I don't follow the argument about logic. Logic concerns relations, and can be surely be relevant only to propositions, not to "individuals" (e.g. "mythical Sphinx", "toy pink Sphinx")?"
It's a small task to go from "individuals" to propositions, like "mythical Sphinx" nicely turns to "there is a mythical Sphinx"! Are you playing with me? Don't you think I understand what I write?
Besides, the OP relates to three articles from AP Martinich's book of Phil. of Lang. and these are B. Russell's "On Denoting", PF Strawson's reaction to it and K. Donnellan's Reference and Definite Descriptions (1966) in that vein. I'm uncertain about this third article, but I'll make it clear to you later. [Edit2, 13.08.2010:] You can also add Quine's (Ch. 1:) On What There Is (from From a Logical Point of View). [End of edit.] [Another edit.] Except Quine, these articles file under Reference and Descriptions by Martinich. [End edit.]
[Edit, 12.08.2010:] You may also think that Logics is all about symbols, but what I like to point to is the Universe of Discourse of Logics that may be easily overlooked by some, ie. beginners, popular readers. So the Epistemology point enters here, UoD. I'll clarify in greater detail as this may look a little confused and blurred. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Epistemology of Logics Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:07 pm

I'm not a follower of the meta-anything (except Metaphysics, but this is clearly an own field as physics don't speculate over God and other metaphysical themes). Rather I put it in general philosophical considerations that's applying in every field concerned. In the case of metalogic then I write it as being logical considerations that apply to every logical consideration regardless of logical branch. So, if this can be a logical consideration that applies to every logical branch? Possibly! As far as I can see, yes!

Post subject: Re: Epistemology of Logics Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:47 pm

It may very well be the case, but I like to view this in relation to the above mentioned articles...
(PS: I'm about to look over the articles "shortly" to widen the clarification and definitely come across with some point unless the whole thing proves futile...)
[Edit, Unsp.:] I've added "K. Donnellan's Reference and Definite Descriptions (1966)" and "Except Quine, these articles file under Reference and Descriptions by Martinich". [End edit.]
[Edit, Unsp.:] (PS2: I'm also wondering whether I'm wrong in thinking it may go into the Logics section, but give me some time and let me make the attempt/case. (Nevertheless, I do think that most of the lines written so far actually do fit into the Logics category.) [End edit.]

Post subject: An Answer to Identity in Metaphysics Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:12 am

From my website:
Quote: "The origin that is the basis of your parents including genetics (the framework/seat of the consciousness), the persistence of the processes in the consciousness, and the history of this consciousness are that which makes up the Identity of a Person in Metaphysics. You can also consider identity like the previous identity and one day when you're in the next day. Thus it follows. Alzheimer's disease may question a number of issues. What do you think about split personality? What is the identity of a person that suffers from Alzheimer's disease? The things that have been mediated over and should be mediated over."
One should also note what Richard Taylor writes in his "Metaphysics" 4th ed. It says from the section of The Problem of Personal Identity Over Time, p. 128:
Quote: "Instead we can say that a person undergoes constant change and renewal over the course of time, such that he is in some respects the same today as he was yesterday and in some respects different, that over the course of sufficient time he undergoes a total renewal such that he shares no cell or particle with a former self long since past, but that he is nevertheless the same person in this relative sense, that he grew out of that former person."
You can at least balance these two texts and think it over. You can also take note of:
Stanford Encycl. of Phil:

Post subject: Epistemology: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:51 pm

I write this as a response to the article in the PN issue 63 and also as an independent discussion of Gettier's counter-examples (to the tripartite definition of knowledge). These counter-examples can be generated in a number of ways and indeed, Jonathan Dancy reports one from the world of tennis and Wimbledon.
In detecting the Higgs boson for example, it is clear that yet we utilise the HDM we have only the theory of Standard Model (save the competing theories) to go by. The question is when we are justified in believing in Higgs boson and thus completing the Standard Model.
The Gettier counter-examples discuss this where we are forced to look at the justification in the tripartite definition of knowledge. Obviously, many feel that when they are justified in believing a proposition p then the proposition p is indeed fact. If it isn't a fact people would say they are not justified after all.
The message of Gettier counter-examples is that we may be wrong still even if we are justified in believing a certain 'fact' p' despite the real fact p is being something else.
Fact p is usually secluded from us to see. The usual account of knowledge gives that
1 Fact p
2 Person a believes fact p
3 Person a's belief of fact p is justified
There is nothing that prevents us from assuming 'fact' p' as fact p is isolated. This is the message of Gettier counter-examples.
As a remark, Maurice Merleau-Ponty points out that we are examining "the joints (of the body of) nature" in which we ourselves exist.
I have tried to make a resolution myself in epistemology that I call The Transmission Argument. It can be found here: I posted the argument in the old forum but strangeness has overtaken the old site (eh.. porn).
Philosophically, we are held apart from truth and true knowledge as we have ever been.
Anyone who has views on Gettier Counter-Examples or would like to comment on what I've written or would like to discuss the article from PN issue 63?

Post subject: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:19 am

The percentage of the variables is given as a score of the mean of people OR the score of your average working day effort OR the score of your combined effort through the whole life facing a certain problem OR a mean as it is turning out as an assessment of the research performance.
Much of psychology results are given in probabilistic terms and these, hunch, data-material and data-integrity or fit, variables are meant to work in the same way but at varying sizes of groups down to the very personal level.
I figure that most people would put a strong emphasis on justification and as a part of it data-integrity or fit would almost always be one of the issues in that justification, the degree to which they were involved in the situation when examining a problem.
I coming back to Scott Sturgeon's paper later. Thanks!

Post subject: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:01 pm

Chance is being measured. From the non-existing person who obtains knowledge of all (100%) to the equally non-existing person who tries to figure out if he knows something at all (0%).

Post subject: Re: Epistemology: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:50 pm

It can be worth to check out Frederick F. Schmitt and his view (possibly his invention) of Epistemic Integrity. He writes about it in "Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism" (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy) 2001 by Hilary Kornblith. He has the section 8 in this book. Here:
More of Frederick F. Schmitt's works here:
Knowledge and Belief (Problems of Philosophy) 1992
Truth: A Primer (Focus) 1995
Again the same from his CV: Truth: A Primer, Series: Focus, ed. Keith Lehrer and Norman Daniels, Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, 1995, pp. xi + 251. I seem unable to identify this work by a bookstore. You can try yourself.
These should be the most relevant, I suspect!
[Edit, 01.07.2010:] There is now a better link to the The Transmission Argument, here: Last addition to it has been March, 2006 (05.11.2009 for definition of Integrity). A small note: while Frederick F. Schmitt writes about integrity as a kind of virtue, I think of it as kind of (natural) property about you and your relationship to your data (and to the end-point of investigation, being a kind of revelation of new data, possibly, a discovery). To formulate a "law" is rather a matter of aptitude to one's own skill in relation to what you have before you and thus not so much a kind of "Integrity" in my sense. If you however, become well acqainted with your data, have a great "Integrity", then you may generate this "law" more easily. Thus this "law"-making may be a kind of "Integrity"-issue in this sense. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Epistemology: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:05 am

Another remark on Schmitt's Epistemic Integrity which I find is used to tear away credibility from the Perspectivists who most people, I believe, see as unserious people in Epistemology. Therefore Epistemic Integrity destroys Perspectivism. In Schmitt's perception, by my interpretation, a charge is being made against unreasonable or dubious epistemologists claiming the Perspectivism position.
Epistemic Integrity then has to be decided among a larger community for it to be credited to a person or to a proposition that's held by this person. One should remember that Integrity in English most often equals Honesty and telling the truth. Thus from the ethical Integrity to epistemic Integrity, Integrity enters the meaning of honesty and reasonability concerning epistemological views/propositions/claims!
Therefore, as Schmitt's Integrity is designed to remove Perspectivism as a credible position, I design Integrity as a property of your own relation to research data that, in my opinion, leads to certified and irrefutable knowledge! Not that this is important to write, but it seems to me that Schmitt is using Integrity differently than I do, hence I cite Merleau-Ponty differently than he does in that same respect. My description is also significantly different from his and I think it's plausible that these 2 different interpretations can be given Epistemic Integrity. You can think about this for yourself... I leave it at that for now, possibly until the purchase of Kornblith's book (2001).
[Edit, 08.07.2010:] Various comments:
You only need one of the percentages to be 100% and the other two to be to the least degree to have this certified and irrefutable knowledge! But then again, I've not been wrong in writing 100% on all three of them and claim the same! That I'm writing this now can't be held against me in my opinion.
You should also note that the two sentences or lines, "2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p" and "4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for", are redundant in the strict sense and that they are mostly added for extra sense, explanatory impact, that may enable people to have more use of this information. All this should be obvious!
Thus this kind of Epistemic Integrity is not a virtue in this context. It's a requirement.
The transmission is, of course, that fact p enters your mind and that you are able to justify this notion of fact p entering your mind. Thus, the transmission should be very clear!
The Transmission Argument has been my line of thought ever since I've started to investigate epistemological circumstances and eyeing the possibility to express it in words as I've now done! This is the reason for this writing's title even today when it may just as well be "Epistemological Integrity as Decisive Property"!
There's a record of additions by RSS here:, with these additions being, 7. juli 2010 09:45 CEST and 3. juli 2010 16:55 CEST. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Epistemology: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:48 pm

I've now been reading some of Schmitt's article in Kornblith, 2001, and it may just be that Schmitt's version and mine are compatible. By the way, he still defeats perspectivism and this may also be a different kind of perspectivism than any absurd version, pending on a kind of reflective epistemology. It may not be so bad. I think he mentions "objective" epistemology too, but without going to my lengths of undergrad. stud. cockiness of "certified and irrefutable" epistemology.
I'll see if I can balance my version against a more thoroughly read and charitable version of Scmitt.
Let me say this straight away and without ambiguity that I hold the position of the Scientific Form of Indirect Realism and if it's possible to bend in Perspectivism in one form or another, it may be okay too, but the kind of reflective mode of Perspectivism fits better with being a stage toward the Scientific Form and obviously for aquiring in a infallible way, this "fact p". That is, using this reflection for devising and moving toward solution in the more complex epistemic situations, esp. research. This reflection being a temporary stage in this situation. Thus, finally, it seems to me that Perspectivism is doomed to fail in more simple epistemic situations.
There have been some editions to this posting.
Later, there are two special quotations that I like to bring forth from his paper in this Kornblith book.

Post subject: Re: Epistemology: Gettier's Counter-Examples Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:46 pm

So as much as I have my Epistemic Integrity as natural property as the crucial 4th criterium, one can point to Frederick Schmitt as having Irrefutable Reliability as the crucial 4th criterium, or to make the whole thing ridiculous, the crucial 3rd criterium of Irrefutable Justification to which the Gettier- arguments will not bite!
(Stanford Encycl. of Phil. suggests a 4th criterium of De-Gettier-ing, the removal of possible Gettier counter-arguments that may defeat the assurance of knowledge or truth or what you will, getting to the objective.)

Post subject: A Possible Angle to Para-Normal Phenomenon of Soul Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 1:45 am

Just in case, every "soul" carries energy, this energy is detectable by infra-red imaging or something thereof when this is set in a very cold chamber/laboratory and finally the being that's loses its body and becomes a bare "soul" is a rat or an animal of lower denomination (I like elephants) then it may be possible to prove the "soul" as an alternative to Dr. Sam Parnia and Dr. Pim van Lommel!
What do you think? There's a clear logical structure to this procedure and it's no problem to set it up! Now, this probably shouldn't go (into the webpage, on my site) into the science section, but I'm such a daring person!

Post subject: Re: A Possible Angle to Para-Normal Phenomenon of Soul Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:15 pm

Some fun from Wikip.
Duncan MacDougall (doctor) determined the soul weighing 21 grams based on the average loss of mass in the six patients within minutes or hours after death. In his book Consilience, E. O. Wilson took note that sociology has identified belief in a soul as one of the universal human cultural elements. Wilson suggested that biologists need to investigate how human genes predispose people to believe in a soul.[page needed]Daniel Dennett has championed the idea that the human survival strategy depends heavily on adoption of the intentional stance, a behavioral strategy that predicts the actions of others based on the expectation that they have a mind like one's own (see theory of mind). Mirror neurons in brain regions such as Broca's area may facilitate this behavioral strategy. The intentional stance, Dennett suggests, has proven so successful that people tend to apply it to all aspects of human experience, thus leading to animism and to other conceptualizations of soul.[69]"
Footnote 69 is "Daniel Dennett. "The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity". Retrieved 2008-07-03."
The 21 grams assertion/finding is just hilarious! Is it true? Booohhhhhh!

Post subject: Re: Debate about infinte intelligence/universals Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:45 pm

I think I can "assert" that intelligence is about the ability to accomplish tasks and thus a rock is not subject to such a notion.
However, there are probably infinitely many (small) variations you can do over intelligence if not operationalised intelligence or a kind of I.Q.

Post subject: Re: Debate about infinte intelligence/universals Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:49 pm

The fact that the rock "sits still" is illusionary because it can't do anything else, actually!
If you operationalise intelligence to be something, certainly an expression of intelligence, then within this operationalisation there's also objectivity I think because everyone can do this test and compare. This should be almost like running a 100 meter (a distance of convention) and see who the best is.

Post subject: Re: Debate about infinte intelligence/universals Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:12 pm

But, but, but I believe rocks are created so that we can walk the earth... Voila, the ground is sooo good to walk on...

Post subject: Re: God being Omnipotent is impossible. Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:42 pm

If God indeed created the Universe and the Earth in it, it is truly an omnipotent task to accomplish! God is therefore omnipotent?

Post subject: Re: God being Omnipotent is impossible. Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:29 am

But is this anything omnipotent? No, of course, it's just to make that wave with the hand and all is good! Indeed, it's just something your neighbour can do!

Post subject: Re: Kierkegaard's Either/Or Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:23 am

Impenitent writes:
the Aesthete beats the Ethicist
it's rock and roll
No! No! No! They are not necessarily in opposition and as you probably know, the development possibly from child to adult is, by Kierkegaard, always Aesthetics below Ethics below Religious that should make a fine, consistent line of thinking! Always... always... always...!
Happy reading! Happy thinking!
PS: I've read one or two smaller works of Kierkegaard, but I can't properly recall the name(s) or the core content!

Post subject: Re: Scientific Deism Explained Essay Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:28 am

"Non-existence exists" is not self-contradictory! If you look into an empty room, then you can surely say that the non-existence of objects exists in this room!
[Edit, 10.06.2010:] Just to make a small clarification. "Non-existence-in-its-entirety exists" is indeed self-contradictory. If absolutely nothing exists then nothing exists. It's fairly straightforward. Although, I think that exactly what exists speculatively and theoretically and what does not is a good activity in many respects. Yet, it's enough to point to the laws of physics and state that something can come out of something and nothing comes out of nothing! This is it! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Scientific Deism Explained Essay Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:40 pm

This is not fallacy of composition because I'm just considering the non-existence of objects in a defined space-time or either. It's almost like pointing to an empty set which may be important so as to move on from what is empty, presumably, area of investigation. It's a place or span where you will not find a thing. Also this is not about "the absolute" (at least in the Newtonian sense). So if this is the consequence, that you can't point to an empty set according to yourself, then surely you must be great!

Post subject: Re: The Philosopher as Hermit Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:53 am

Just interested, is one a hermit if one lives in solitude and communicates on this forum?

Post subject: Re: If God Exists, Is It Our God? Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:40 pm

I think one should focus on the existence of one or more Gods whatsoever. To ask if a God is ours is stupid, I think, but then again, the author is probably an atheist? No?

Post subject: Re: Bowing to the Saudis vs. Making out with the Saudis Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:30 pm

I think that it's unwise to call it "subservience" because Obama, for a historic change and clever leadership, acknowledges several world powers and that several places on earth are important, incl. Saudi-Arabia!
This is a significant change for the better and makes USA look good on the world stage. Rather than being a commanding "dog", it's now cooperating with or networking with the rest of the world which may very well pave the way for a more respectful, peaceful world! Hurray for Obama!

Post subject: Re: is money evil ? Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:54 am

I assert the opposite: money is good because it brings order to society and makes it more fluent!

Post subject: Re: Hypothetical imperative, categorical imperative, or neither? Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:53 pm

If the categorical imperative (by Kant) isn't taken seriously then it becomes a hypothetical imperative?

Post subject: Re: The laconic difficulty, and brilliance, of the aphorism. . . Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:03 pm

I've been making quotes or aphorisms myself for some time that I've posted in the "great quotations" section, twitter and my website(s) under (Comfy) Ident. You can find my website under my profile.

Post subject: Re: Do Black Holes Contain Hidden Universes? Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:35 pm

Noooo!!! There are ideas that Black Holes contain proton stars and this theory is much better!!
Besides, it's unclear to me what these smaller Black Holes are meant to be comprising...
No, smaller and smaller Black Holes are indeed a mystery! Also, does it not take a certain critical mass to make a Black Hole in the first place?

Post subject: Re: Halal symbol on food Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:59 pm

It's just that Halal implies that this food is good for Muslims. Atheists have no such problems therefore there's no special marking for them. Even the Jews can probably quickly decide over its Kosher status, no problem for them either. Thus Halal marking... (Christians are also good with most.)

Post subject: Re: The Free Will Challenge Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:26 pm

Goodbye to determinism! Here:!
Aren't we in control? Who can explain the "miracle" of consciousness?

Post subject: Re: morality Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:33 pm

On the normative, Hitler should have been assassinated before he came to power! There is certainly no requirement to cope with social reality at all costs!

Post subject: Re: morality Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:44 pm

About Hitler's evil:
"Hitler came to power in 1933 and "Kristallnacht (German pronunciation: [kris'tal,nart]; literally "Crystal Night") or The Night of Broken Glass was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany and Austria from the 9th until the 10th November 1938."
And then you have the claim of other states like Austria and other areas! Finally it came to war against both Poland and UK the 1st September 1939.
There should have been good opportunities between 1933 and 1939. I remember seeing this picture of Hitler in military clothing sitting by a table, surrounded by standing, crowded people all around! I just dream about sticking a gun out from between two people and making some good 2 9mm pops right in the face and the brain, both being hit twice!
What a change of events it would have been!

Post subject: Re: Is it possible to obtain peace through moral laws Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:42 am

I think this is pretty obvious. If the right punishment is provided proportionately to the crime and people are given proper and honest information, it should be very much possible.

Post subject: Re: Another belief? Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:43 pm

i blame blame writes:
"But if neither intellectual memory, nor genetic memory is transferred in a reincarnation, what exactly is? Personal identity is based on memory and possibly some inherited physiological factors."
Who knows? What if it's that subconscious shred that makes your "soul" to a "soul"? Possibly then, what we're trying to identify may be very small and very elusive!

Post subject: Philosphy Now with Issue 79 Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:36 pm

Congratulations, Rick Lewis and the team for delivering issue 79!
I've already taken an interest in A Kripkean Argument For Goatism here:
It's theme this time is not exactly my street, but it looks very nice like the previous issues!
I also like to advise people to log in and have the reading online as it's now THERE! Perhaps, it's more practical too, browsing through the articles while surfing other interests on the net and also doing background checking!

Post subject: Re: Where is the Mind located? Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:03 am

I don't want to make the impression of being unserious and this is indeed a classical question and a definite mystery in the case of Dualism if it's ever to be proved/determined.
I think, as one can say that the mind/soul is located in the pineal gland, one is equally justified in equating the mind with the whole of the body as far as it's alive and all of the brain as long as this is healthy. Finally, the mind/soul can be equated with one's being, holding it as unnecessary to investigate further in so far as it is a serious investigation. A mortal wound is still a mortal wound and death is still death.
The real focus should be to make the first few good steps: prove/determine a possibility for a separate mind/soul to exist outside the traditional physical body whether temporarily or eternally as afterlife. I suggest the Van Lommel studies can be a good beginning and possibly adding all cases reported in medicine by a kind of MRI-confirmation secondarily and tertiarily getting "informal" accounts also by MRI-confirmation. Then it's just to build your database and be prudent on the evaluation.

Post subject: Re: What divides philosophers? Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:43 pm

There may be indifferences due to insanity...
There may also exist slight cognitive deficiencies in some people.
Generally, I think (reasonable) people can agree by making a plausible case for their view(s).

Post subject: Re: abortion Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:58 pm

This stuff of Impenitent refers to the 70s and possibly into the 80s. But at these times, the impoverished and of low social esteem suffered all sorts of wrongdoing from state-managed programs!
What about now, 2010? It seems most is good (affluent parts of the world)!

Post subject: Re: abortion Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:04 pm

Yes, no-one..., I suspect. (Possibly except for some with Down's Syndrome, but that's for health reasons and I don't think it really applies.) Again "there no such thing as people being bred like dogs, therefore there is no such thing as a human race". Why bother with Eugenics then? If it's only a matter of personal selection, I see no problem.

Post subject: Re: The two books Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:55 pm

I wonder a little about that too, but then again do they trash the 10 commandments? I doubt it. The NT must be a kind of a new era for the Christians that's added on top of the OT.

Post subject: Introduction - Rather late, let me explain... Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:56 pm

I've been at this forum since 2004 and from the relaunch since 2008 (from a break in 2007, going up again in Oct. 2007).
The reason my introduction doesn't appear is due to the relaunch and with it new software from pHpBB (look to the bottom of the page). This new software required everyone to log on again anew and the whole forum started from blank again, needing to be filled with content again. So here we are! In good spirits together...
A little about myself: I've some work experience and 3 years of studies from university, being enrolled in '99 to '00 and taking single subjects from 2007-2009. You can check out my CV here (only in Norwegian, but you may get the picture):
Here it is: "Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Hellos"
"I guess I greet the forum with some of Kant which I usually refers to as The Crossroads, simply:
"Nowhere but in the principle of the will, with no regard to the ends that can be brought about through such action. For the will stands, as it were at a crossroads between its a priori principle, which is formal, and its a posteriori incentive, which is material; and since it must be determined by something, it must be determined by the formal principle of volition, if the action is done from duty - and in that case every material principle is taken away from it."
- Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I. Kant, Michael L. Morgan's Classics of Moral and Political Theory."
Philosophy of Mind
Theory of Science
It is all a show!
It's good to have a computer file for such things, a little noir!

Post subject: Re: Swami Beyondanada Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:36 am

May I suggest that the Emperor may want to increase cultural virtues, incl. science, rather than seeking the expansion of the empire (and thereby war).
What you write looks incredibly similar to Thomas Paine. Are you influenced by him? One of his quotes goes like this: my religion is to do good!

Post subject: "What Mary didn't know" by Frank Jackson Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:54 am

"What Mary didn't know" by Frank Jackson in (ed.) Rosenthal, David M. The Nature of Mind 1991 ISBN 0195046706.
I like to point out this article. I have found two links that are useful:
Now, the argument doesn't make you some novel statements. Generally, your attitudes toward physicalism and qualia and dualism will remain the same before you read the article as after.
I do not think the article makes any essential statement. Mary is locked up and learns something new when she is released. This is obvious even if it only states a category error on part of the argument. But from her view with a complete physicalist black-white account, is there anything essential to learn? I do not think so! Nevertheless, she will never learn the actual point of view of another person.
The article does well in dealing with the views of Paul M. Churchland.
In the end, I am inclined to agree with Daniel Dennett.
"Daniel Dennett argues that Mary would not, in fact, learn something new if she stepped out of her black and white room to see the color red.[3] Dennett asserts that if she already truly knew "everything about color", that knowledge would include a deep understanding of why and how human neurology causes us to sense the "qualia" of color. Mary would therefore already know exactly what to expect of seeing red, before ever leaving the room. Dennett argues that although we cannot conceive of such a deep knowledge, if a premise of the thought experiment is that Mary knows all there is to know about color, we cannot assume that we can fathom or even describe such knowledge or that such knowledge doesn't exist."
Source: Wikipedia.

Post subject: "What Mary didn't know" by Frank Jackson Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:29 pm

a_uk writes:
"Is Dennet, et al, saying that she will not gain a new experience here, i.e. experiencing Red? Are they saying that she already knows what Red is without experiencing it?"
Mary has the intimate scientific explanation of the colour Red. Indeed, they are saying that she knows Red without having experienced it.
I guess you can equal it with a thousand experiments of how it is like walking on the moon. In a while some will say that the one who goes through these experiments will eventually have a good idea of what it is like to walk on the moon. The article on the other hand says that there is a certain quality that is lost and that this quality matters a lot!

Post subject: Re: Who won the Vietnam war? Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 1:31 am

Wootah writes:
"America lost, but freedom won. Domino effect was thwarted and countless harm across Asia ie: look at North Korea was averted."
I very much agree with this.

No comments:

Post a Comment