The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 14

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 1:16 PM: Subjectivity of Time - Can the mind control how we percieve time?

Desidude666 wrote: Time, I always thought, does not exist. Because it gives a perception of a different frame of reference that runs in alignment with our own lives and reality. It forms as a force in the universe, but in reality there is no such thing as time whether tangible or otherwise. Sure, we like to keep track of our activities, but the sun also passes over the sky quite regularly. Some people live that number of days, months, years. You also have the seasons that must have meant more in agricultural societies than they do today. I'm uncertain too about the number of time, but it does keep a perspective. Some entities have short time span and others have long ones.

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 9:26 AM: Human Unification. - Seriously it's a two word title, what do you want me to explain? The definition?

I'm with you, Saint Michael. I've seen this report on BBC or CNN that China has the largest English-speaking number of people in the world. China is coming about big time. Nietzsche should have realised that scientific problems and puzzles don't go away as soon as world peace happens. Aren't we going to compete over having the most quotations or fetch the biggest prizes or construct the biggest and most beautiful enterprises? Sure! It's hard work too! To assume that progress of mankind will halt because of the lack of war is to clip the wings of a bird. What exactly does Nietzsche know about human progress? He should really be on my Foe-list. Such a power-fixated deviant!

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 6:43 AM: I'm a troll

It may sound like a mild case of schizophrenia to me. Do you respect your own feelings? What kind of upbringing have you had? Have your parents or your environment, friends or so, ever emphasised harmony and personal character? I do think that perhaps reading a little ethics may get you along, especially the deontological kind. I find it weird if you're not having some kind of chaos in your mind. To me, it sounds as if you're blowing in the wind. Perhaps I can suggest that you take some time, use some time on yourself, to analyse your feelings and your mind. After you have done this, you can begin to wonder what kind of set of reasons you should act on, that you decide on your flavour of (ethical, deontological) rationality. The processes of this analysis can be repeated and I think you need to get a firm grip on who you are (yes, you're a troll, but don't want to be one, eg. disharmony) and who you want to be. When the situations arise, you are supposed to be in control and act on reasons in your mind, these reasons usually being premeditated in some generalised manner. Cheers, don't_want_to_be_troll! Do some thinking!

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 3:30 AM: A Rebuke of Antistatism - Anarchism is fallacious and morally myopic.

I have strong sympathies with the labour-movement. I'll hold off a bit and see what others contribute. Philosophy of Politics is not my strongest field. I've hardly read anything. Mostly I have it from general political discussions, the general media and so.

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 3:15 AM: Do morals limit you?

"Do morals limit you?" Not in any essential way! Morals, besides helping you keep dignity, integrity, and mental health, isn't an issue... An old definition of insanity is "the inability to separate right from wrong"! That is really something to take note of. We may be talking of various levels of morals here: deceit, fraud, corruption, stealing, assault, harassment, rape, cheating (on your beloved), breaking traffic regulations, irresponsible behaviour ie. bankruptcy etc, failing company policies, breaking unwritten rules, acting out perversions, taking part in conspiracies, lying, breaking promises, well... the rest.

Posted Sep 19, 2009 - 1:38 AM: Definition is meaning

Quick insertion: H. P. Grice has this article, Meaning, that has set the landscape in this regard. When I think about it "Definition is Meaning" doesn't sound so bad, but I think one just as well can add Concept and get "Concept and Definition is Meaning". If you make up a concept that you give a nice definition, why shouldn't this be meaningful, at least to yourself? Definition may be broadly meant here so that the content of a book is its definition of its title-concept. I have doubts to how much the author of this thread knows in Philosophy of Language, but the game is open for all, for good or bad.

Posted Sep 16, 2009 - 5:05 PM: Thought Crime - Is what you think a crime?

People may get severely deranged with thought-crime depending on how much of themselves they put into it. That is my bet. If you have these incredibly perverse thoughts all the time, I bet it may affect your social interactions. I do eagerly enjoy Clive Barker, but I believe I place it right as I enjoy it. I vaguely remember a case in USA where there have been these two kids acting out tricks from a violent arcade game, I can't remember which, and it ends with one killing the other. I suppose this answers your scenario in a way. It's not definite. There are probably too many factors in it for counting. Be nice!

Posted Sep 16, 2009 - 4:48 PM: Subjectivity of Time - Can the mind control how we percieve time?

I have also been looking at time here: http://www.t-lea.net/Time.html. I find time to be both objective and subjective. Time moves on relentlessly and unstoppable. Time is thus making events continuously history, but we, ourselves, can make use of this time, effectively, making a lot of work, ineffectively, drinking beer and watching sports. In this subjective experience we shouldn't forget the psychological factors that the OP mentions, I believe one factor to be the current speed of the brain (I.Q.?). So the subjective time is probably constantly in change, perhaps also in correlation with the biological clock. Perhaps old people experience time differently than when they are young. It's always a classic to mention McTaggart. To this, I find the two series to be non-contradictory, but subjective time is probably rightfully subsumed under objective time. You will not get younger!

Posted Sep 14, 2009 - 10:47 AM: Words, Understanding & Interpretation - What are words?

We are also using words to name the discoveries from the research of the joints of nature. Generally to come up with names for everything in our environment has been proven very important. It's a big subject the OP brings up.

Posted Sep 10, 2009 - 4:11 AM: The Generalized Demarcation of Subjective and Objective - Identification of Subjective and Objective thinking

I'm thinking if something is Objective, it can't possibly be Subjective. If you have this magnificent theory in your head of a law in nature and it turns out to be the best then you are indeed Objective, no matter what! I may see how your system demands the blurring of Objective and Subjective, but it's less plausible than the initial divide of Objective and Subjective. I guess I'll see where this is going. On the other hand, I find it an intriguingly new view.

Posted Sep 4, 2009 - 5:28 AM: What exactly is reality?

Perhaps, one can begin like this: Reality is your life-world. Try to run away from it! As it seems plausible, you acknowledge the worlds of others too, hence the intersubjective. Then to get to the seemingly objective reality, you present knowledge as such that what one tries to improve by the method of science. To a degree, intersubjective and objectivity represented by (temporary) knowledge may at times go together. This is only a starter.

Posted Aug 13, 2009 - 9:32 AM: Would you live forever? - If technological advances ment that you could live forever - would you?

I must say I find it really romantic to see myself in conversation with that 10 K old mind. If I can be equal to that mind myself and still in conversation, I wonder how one sees probabilities of events and all else. Immortality, certainly! Sleep if nothing else.

Posted Jul 31, 2009 - 11:52 PM: Epistemic Minimalism - Knowledge as True Belief

Doesn't your "epistemic minimalism" lead to people living inside bubbles of knowledge? How are people supposed to agree on what is true? It seems to me that your "epistemic minimalism" has the causation within it that gives "S believes P because P is true". To most people, having two beliefs, one of them false, knowledge still comes across as obscure without the justification, even to yourself, I think. My conclusion is that JTB already represents the most minimal theory.

Posted Jul 29, 2009 - 5:43 PM: Should Suicide Be Prevented? - Why? Why Not?

My position is that suicide should be institutionalised. By being so f**king pro-life, one is condemning [suicidal people] to the hidden places where the more violent processes, suicides, take place. If one places a comprehensive qualification prior to the institutionalised suicide one may be able to establish a constructive [relationship] between the suicidal and the caring people around this person and finally and thoroughly avoid that suicide. I think this may lead to a more true society having people living truly according to volition and perhaps in the best way. This is short, but so be it.

Posted Jul 27, 2009 - 9:14 PM: What has Obama done for You?

ciceronianus wrote: Obama has done nothing for me. But, I didn't expect he would. I make it a rule, in politics and other things, not to expect that somebody will do something "for" me. Can't you even admit Obama some administration efforts?

Posted Jul 27, 2009 - 1:36 PM: Some questions for those [who] believe in human souls...

Angra Mainyu wrote: Just a question, to be clear: Do you say everything is natural because you just don't make a distinction between natural and non-natural, or do you make a distinction but everything falls on the side of the natural? It's the first! I say everything is natural because I just don't make a distinction between natural and non-natural. Others in this forum have pointed out the paradoxical about it and I agree with that. There is nothing that is our cause that is beyond us or otherwise possible to make a cognition of, to experience in a sense. The non-natural doesn't seem to have any logical place.

Posted Jul 27, 2009 - 8:48 AM: The Euthyphro Dilemma

Kwalish Kid wrote: But this is seemingly incoherent, since if God exists, then God makes no effort to inform the vast majority of human beings of the nature of God. Of course, if morality somehow comes from the nature of God yet God still somehow doesn't want people to be moral, this could make sense. It's not incoherent if God is in you in the form of a soul. Let's further assume that this soul comes with cues effecting on your life. An example may be that you feel sick when contemplating committing an atrocity, something repulsive. As you're affected by this sickness, you get the hint that it's no good for you committing the morally repulsive. In this, you have been led to abstain from the morally repulsive and act in accordance with what is good, in accordance with your feelings and your moral consciousness. So a moral "realism" comes with it.

Posted Jul 27, 2009 - 8:09 AM: The Euthyphro Dilemma

Crackers, you don't need to conform to the absolute moral standard, but you can honestly try to live up to it. Maybe, somehow the morals represent a kind of epistemology, a fundamental kind of "physics". It's not very traditional to assert such, but I say it still.

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 11:59 PM: Cannibalism

What about the football team that has crash landed somewhere in South America a while ago? I believe they have had to eat from their dead comrades. It seems ethical to me that the "cannibals" are still considered good people.

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 6:08 PM: Why is Pedophillia wrong?

Isn't it just to introduce the children to one another so they can have pleasures with themselves? They are emotionally compatible, probably. In this regard, pedophilia is really excess to what is needed to the situation until they become of age. Children do seem fit for one another, therefore pedophilia is truly wrong. Yes? I'm so decisive today!

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 9:21 AM: Billion Dollar Question

I think some people are likely to skip the notion that there is a huge amount of thoughts in your luggage that is going to be lost if one agrees to the deal. I mean, if I'm 40 yo. will I accept to become a mental 2 yo. again? It sickens me for sure!

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 4:48 AM: The Thing about Death - Coming indepth into the topic of Death

I don't think Death truly exists. The spirit lives on. There may be reincarnation because it sounds as a logical consequence. I do, however, hold onto the Death used in the normal sense as the cessation of the living body, the life *on* earth, here and now.

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 4:37 AM: Some questions for those believe in human souls...

Angra Mainyu wrote: Do other primates, like chimpanzees, orangutans, capuchin monkeys, etc., have souls? Yes. Angra Mainyu wrote: What about other animals, like bottlenose dolphins, dogs, pigs, cats, rats, flies, etc.? Yes, they have souls too. Angra Mainyu wrote: What about earlier hominids, like Neanderthals, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, etc.? Yes, they have souls too. I hold that everything that has the capability of evolution, has a soul. There is, though, a convention I cling to and that is the division between the dead matter and the living. However, eventually I think that the smallest parts of nature, the dead matter also consists of soul-matter in a special way, from a special angle, and in a special light. As I've noted elsewhere, I'm awaiting further development of the Standard Model in physics for placing myself in the dualism or "materialism". There may be God-matter around! Angra Mainyu wrote: Is our soul involved in their daily actions/thoughts? Yes, definitely, as much as all of our consciousness! Angra Mainyu wrote: How do you distinguish between natural and supernatural? I don't! I can call something "extra-natural", but in the end everything is natural, even God!

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 3:37 AM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

I realise I'm addicted to the meaning of religion, but I also find that I can mostly drop religion if the "core claims" of it are answered. Now, it's just not likely that I'm alive if that happens, but at that point, I can imagine people beginning to worship comics and imaginary beings. Religion, now, isn't meaningless, I think.

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 3:13 AM: Relationships Can Be Meaningless

I like what you bring up, "Relationships Can Be Meaningless". Sure, I agree that relationships must include friendship. Strictly speaking, though, if you're hostile to someone, isn't this a hostile relationship? So instead of pointing to relationships, you may want to point to friendships which may include sexual relations. This should make sense here.

Posted Jul 26, 2009 - 3:02 AM: Auto-amputation - Trait of the world. Have you heard about it? Weird stuff!

Yes, now results turn up in Google as well. It's autoamputation I've meant. Thank you, swstephe! (Hmm.. My English is still evolving, I guess. smiling face) There's stories there about toes, breast, and a tongue. As for the sick smilie, perhaps it's best that the sick is left out most of the time. Alright, now this post can read as post #1. We still love the geckos, octopi, and what else... Please, don't lose your arm! (Buggers! swstephe, there's no chance that you are able to change the auto(de)capitation to autoamputation in the thread's title?)

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 4:46 PM: The Euthyphro Dilemma

A change of mind is, as I take it, a change of morals and that is not acceptable. I've explained my view of the problem of evil here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...evil-a-theodicy-35787.html. Evil is outside God and the question whether he permits it or not therefore does not apply. It's just there, on the outside. It's true that God lacks free will in a sense because God is confined to what is perfect. God's creations are unable to fail. That God's beings return to God may not be anymore than refreshment. Maybe a "block-God" doesn't sound so bad as long as there's a guarantee of infinity and perfection therein. I must smile...

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 3:00 PM: The Euthyphro Dilemma

Octopus, I really think your remark that God is supposed to "choose" or "control himself", ie. change arbitrarily, is off the mark. If "God says so because something is good" then what is it supposed to mean? Strange! Can God anything else, but act out God's nature? There can't be so many choices if the concept of God is supposed to hold. Yes?

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 2:20 PM: Auto-amputation - Trait of the world. Have you heard about it? Weird stuff!

Auto-amputation by humans! Assertion: it's possible! Exactly how is unknown to me. My question is: have you heard about auto-amputation by humans? Yes/No? It's as easy as that. I basically don't know more than you do.

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 2:16 PM: Crisis, what crisis?

There's an inevitable beautiful world coming and I think administration or government levels are mostly given by science. Take the WFP, isn't it nice that food is transported from where it can be grown to where it's needed? Of course, the internet is just making the whole even more beautiful and cohesive. I wish for a happy and peaceful world filled with science and joy.

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 1:44 PM: There IS a God

matt84 wrote: The reason I would not use The Bible as evidence is because it is totally unreliable. I'm not even sure what "The Bible" constitutes, no two people seem to have the same idea. It was written by many different authors in many languages over an extremely large period of time and then translated only God knows how many times. What we have in our hands today is in no way shape or form the original texts. Obviously has some truth in it but it would never hold up in court as evidence. The reason Qur'an is so powerful is because it has one author and is preserved perfectly in the language it was revealed in. Qur'an is straight from the horses mouth so to speak, direct authority as you put it. How extremely cool! Edit: I have previously held Judaism to be a powerful religion due to their education that says the followers embody a part of God or something like that. (am I totally off here?) Now I shall consider Islam as well. I have to say though, that nothing beats Scientology as a religion.

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 1:38 PM: Auto-amputation - Trait of the world. Have you heard about it? Weird stuff!

I'm meaning it! I believe humans are capable of auto-amputation under certain special neurological conditions. It's not metaphor! I'm glad you're mentioning Geckos and Octopi. In my experience there are certain small harmless snakes capable of dropping their tails. I don't know what they are called in English. I don't want you to get bothered by this. You are welcome to leave it if you want to.

Posted Jul 25, 2009 - 11:38 AM: Auto-amputation - Trait of the world. Have you heard about it? Weird stuff!

I understand it the way that [auto-amputation] isn't necessarily the separation of the head from the body, but can mean the separation of limbs from the body or other parts separating from the body. I find that in this respect it should be almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, to make the head auto(de)capitate from the body.

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 5:03 PM: Subjective and objective truth - Never the twain?

My position is that language and words with it must mean something. If it doesn't mean something we can't communicate and there's no use in using language at all, but this is obviously false. I think one can switch the word "objective" with the word "intersubjective" and this effects a more clear contrast to what is only subjective. Let's take the example of "over here", it's reasonable, I think, to say that this means the location of the space that I'm now occupying. Similarly, all sorts of social events and human-made objects nicely fall into the objective category. Holding these terms, subjective, objective, intersubjective, they surely add to explanatory power and as such uphold the "construction" of the divide between them in a given "dualism" or somewhere there. The divide of these three epistemological states may be a step toward a further discussion on Truth. I hope this writing makes sense.

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 3:01 PM: Auto-amputation - Trait of the world. Have you heard about it? Weird stuff!

I'm just curious about you. I think everyone knows that some creatures are capable of dropping a part of their being in order to escape a predator or something. I think I can claim that this is possible for human beings too. Not as in the case of escaping predators, but from a special neurology kind of case. Has anyone heard the same as I? Some things are just remarkable in this world and I have wanted to ask. It may be very unusual, but I have this notion. BTW, I'm not referring to the people who loop their head in a rope and use their car to make the head come off. Eh.. "auto", I know!

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 1:38 PM: The Undiscussability of Torture - Claim: Torture should be undiscussable.

For revenge, keep it clean and go straight for the kill! I bet they die in a blink of regret!

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 12:40 PM: God's will is not absolute

God has set forth the laws of nature (in and from God's own nature) and you are thereby at least semi-determined. Can you move outside the laws of nature? I don't think so. I say it's so fixed, it's pleasurable.

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 12:32 PM: The Euthyphro Dilemma

I bloody agree with aletheist on it! There's no contradiction in being perceiver A of the goodness from God and actually perceive this goodness that flows from God as p. 1. p, the goodness that "flows" from God 2. a, perceiver, believes or perceives the goodness of God that p 3. a's perception or belief that p is justified It may be commonly believed that p is totally passive, but I don't think this is the case in every case. Also, God is unable to be anything else than perfect and he's unable to create anything else than what is the best. "Socrates" doesn't get this, but, hey, we're 2200 years more developed. So clearly, Socrates gets it all wrong and easily refutes himself, the dumbass. Octopus, if you drink a little when reading Plato, you may get a more vivid view of him (and Socrates). Thank you! Edit: I like to commend you, Octopus, for being straight on the issue and supplying the material of angle to it. This post is not meant to criticise you in any negative way. You may benefit from reading Plato a little informal.

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 10:31 AM: Can anyone suggest me a good general philiosophy book?

I suggest that you choose something comprehensive, surely a book on history, in about 800-900 pages. This number of pages secures a fair overview of the various philosophers. Instead of reading it from start to finish, you should read about philosophies as they appeal to you. As you deepen, you'll cover all of them in the end in parallel to your own thinking. I suggest also that you get something new. Have a nice journey! As an appetiser, maybe you can choose Sophie's World or something, hmm..., Philosophy - A Beginner's Guide, Jenny Teichman and Katherine C. Evans, Blackwell.

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 8:33 AM: What has Obama done for You?

As a person from Europe I feel extremely comfortable with his show of intelligence and respect. People say that he's good writing speeches and implying his head's in the clouds. This is something I find blatantly false. He's very much on every issue that arises and he deals with it. It has been noted that the diplomacy corpse of USA has been so reduced that essentially USA speaks with its gun which may fall in as very brute. I think Obama at least is going to try the diplomacy with Iran before there's military action there. I envy you Obama! Obama, come settle in Europe! smiling face (you know we are as socialist as you are) There should be more time elapsing before we see his true genious! Under Obama, GO USA!

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 8:17 AM: The Encumbrance Theory of Intelligence (ETI) - Philosophy of Psychology?

I agree that my theory doesn't account for physical (genetic) defects or brain diseases. It's the case that I don't intend to make it that way. I can however interpret you to mean also the physical structure that is supposed to make the impression of qualia or whatever and in this respect also, my theory is flat. I hold that if the brain is relatively healthy, my theory says something despite relatively small differences. Two people who score 170 in IQ are analogous to two people who bench 150 kg. I see no important differences between those two sets. I agree that intelligence is a complex issue (therefore operationalism), but I also have the impression that smart people in science are quite open to talk about intelligence and what makes them good. Access to data is plentiful in other words.

Posted Jul 24, 2009 - 6:09 AM: Happiness Equation - An equation showing the effect of a few key variables on happiness.

Here is one of unhappiness:

Farber's Theory of Suicide S = f ( PIC.DEC.DIG.TS / Su.HFT ) where the key is ( / = dividend as on the calculator)
S = Probability of Suicide
PIC = Frequency of Production of Personalities Injured in Their Sense of Competence
DEC = Demands for the Exercising of Competence
DIG = Demands for Interpersonal Giving
TS = Tolerance of Suicide
Su = Availability of Succorance
HFT = Degree of Hope in the Future Time Perspective of the Society

Source: Issue nr. 20 of Philosophy Now

The reason for posting this is that if you know the dark side, you may get a sound idea of the bright side.

Posted Jul 23, 2009 - 3:16 PM: The split of morality in religion

Monks devote themselves to their religion fully which may be very much in excess of what is required to be successfully a member of a faith. So the lay-people of the faith is committed to the level that is both necessary and sufficient. Monks go beyond this and I really think it's unnecessary. I mean, the monks should all be professors of religion after a time. Thanks for issuing this! BTW, I'm not a monk!

Posted Jul 8, 2009 - 10:08 PM: The Issues of Faith

From the perspective of a scientific deist: Furor wrote: 1) What need does a creator deity have for human worship? There shouldn't be any. There's a necessary return of its matter. Maybe if God puts several universes into play, God can compare the development of them and the creatures they create. It can also be refreshing to see the return of the various forms of matter into God's body, I speculate. As God plays out God's own nature, I guess it's like ripping a kidney out of your body and seeing how it replaces itself again. Furor wrote: 2) What need has such a being for a proxy agent such as a prophet? A prophet may not be any more than another human being or a great scientist. The God-view should fall into place eventually in due course. Furor wrote: 3) Why would such a being not make its message universally comprehensible? I take it to be universally comprehensible. You don't even need to believe in God to end up there. The cognition of it should at least strike some time in the after-life. Furor wrote: 4) Why would any such being require specific doctrinal beleif? There's no doctrinal belief in this. Furor wrote: 5) Why would such a being have a will or plan for mankind? Of what particular importance would one species be above another to such a being? There's no particular plan for humankind, only the possibility of rationality. I believe that species are only judged by their level of rationality. I can't believe God has a preferance for one species over another. The degree of rationality gives the strength of relationship to God. Furor wrote: 6) Why would such a being feel it necessary to engage humans in theodicy? The theodicy is the work of rational beings and serves only to indicate direction. This indication may not be necessary in that it only takes the continued effort to reach God no matter what. Furor wrote: 7) Is it truly free will when one is herded into complying with scriptural, doctrinal guidance of action with the spectres of death and subsequent damnation for non-compliance? I'm uncertain about the issue of free will. Compatibilism, anyone? I don't think there's damnation. You set the course to your own mind yourself. Furor wrote: 8) Does denying the wishes of a prophet or messenger of god to abstain from idolatry or worship of another human not invalidate those proclaiming adherence? Rationality may have many faces so no. Furor wrote: 9) Why have religious institutions denied membership despite espousing universal love of mankind? This seems strange to me as well. Some people display unacceptable behaviour? Furor wrote: 10) If there exists a nemesis or counter to the deity in question, could not the counter be the entity requiring worship when the true creator deity requires no such thing?

I believe that this counter is nothing and it's not possible to worship nothing.

Posted Jul 2, 2009 - 12:20 PM: Evidence of Revelation - A Problem of Religious Epistemology

This reminds me of scene from Babylon 5 (I like sci-fi a lot!) where Amb. Kosh of the Vorlons is forced to take on an angelic appearance and use this to save Sheridan(?) who is falling to his death. The result of this *dramatic* scene is that every being on Babylon 5 walks around talking about the appearance according to their belief. Basically, if I get to see an angel with a flaming sword, I probably don't care what belief it comes from. I will be in awe.

Posted Jul 2, 2009 - 11:36 AM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

Isn't the "capacity of future-science" to "answer the core-claims of religions" firmly within philosophy of science? Isn't just that about science? Core-claims have been defined as that which definitively explains "life existence, consciousness, and infinity". This may be in excess, but I think we agree on what it should be, the discussion that is. If this is in excess, just ignore it! I've been slightly stupid.

Posted Jul 2, 2009 - 6:26 AM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

thewatcher wrote: Are we so terribly off track? W and I are merely discussing the bearing of religion upon social problems. If you are inclined to view such problems scientifically, then the explanatory power of religion is very much at issue in that discussion. I agree. The issue remains to an extent. What is left of the explanatory power of religion if I hold that future-science answers the riddles of infinity, consciousness, and life existence? What is left of religion if this core of it disappears from the realm of religion into the realm of science? I say in post #6 "... I have come to believe that if I make the conjecture that science in the future will answer the core questions, religions will fall away and be redefined as "religions" that make a bunch of metaphysical claims." wuliheron counters by introducing the aspect of ethics, but I think ethics in religious systems is used as incentives for access to infinity. If you already get infinity, the standing on ethics is answered with it. wuliheron wrote: I don't believe for a moment that you are even seriously fooling yourself. You didn't just mention the "demarcation against religion" as if asking for a dictionary definition. You proposed that science would eventually usurp religion! Again, what kind of response did you expect? Did you really think those of us who might be attached to religion would stay in their own little corner on the religious message board and you would be showered with praise and aggreement from everyone else? Get real dude. I don't think "usurp" is the word. Rather, I suggest the term "answering the core claims (of religions)". I've been expecting a response firmly within the philosophy of science. I don't need ignorant praise and agreement. This far, can I suggest this under Philosophy of Religion: Religious vs. Atheistic Societies Which makes the better alternative?

Posted Jul 1, 2009 - 4:15 PM: Evidence for God - Who determines what types and amounts are sufficient?

I want to shoot in: it can be seen as a blessing to be gifted with life at all. We should not grieve for the 100 years not lived, but we should be happy for the time lived. Cheers! Oh, yes! I'm preaching! (omg)

Posted Jul 1, 2009 - 5:44 AM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

This is a philosophy forum. Is this the Philosophy of Religion section? When I mention "religion", it's in a context, namely "the demarcation against religion". There is an implicit "from the view of science" in it. I haven't meant to be rude. I just want to keep "philosophy of religion" to the "philosophy of religion" and also, of course, "philosophy of science" to the "philosophy of science". The theme I bring up is very traditional. I've read quite some where the philosophers manage to mention "religion" without going through the whole ordeal of what is essentially "philosophy of religion". I can hardly believe all of what is in this thread goes into philosophy of science. I sense the discussion is veering off its right track and I believe I'm in my right to issue it!

Posted Jun 30, 2009 - 11:03 PM: Evidence for God - Who determines what types and amounts are sufficient?

Perhaps the miracles are the first discoveries of phenomena. The consequent explanations of them are just our way of naturalizing the whole.

Posted Jun 29, 2009 - 7:03 PM: How do religious people feel about people who are non-religious? - A bit of sociology...

To me, religion is subordinate to the personality of the people I surround myself with. A lousy Christian may think one goes to heaven, but in my eyes lousy people go to Hell no matter what! Well, actually, I don't believe in Hell. Maybe they go to the eternal purgatory, suffer psychic ailments or turmoil, or simply face their own lousy self played back on themselves eternally! Bliss!

Posted Jun 21, 2009 - 10:45 AM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

Kelby wrote: what do you mean by the "demarcation problem against religion?" I haven't heard it quite used in the way you are using it. The demarcation problem is simply noting the difference between religion and science. In other words, what makes science science and rleigion religion. Basically, I find two areas that science borders to, metaphysics and religion. Traditionally, it has been a problem to make a sound demarcation against religion, that is, it has been impossible to separate science from religion. Some people may see science as just another form of religion of which I disagree strongly. I must say the issue isn't "simply a matter of noting", it's quite hard work. In the making of the demarcation against everything that isn't science, I think it has been implied that one can get to scientific solutions faster if the non-science has been cut out of the picture. Edit: When those two areas mix with science we get pseudo-science, just so you know I haven't left it out of the picture. People may protest to this by claiming that some metaphysics necessarily is part of science. This is correct, I think, but I don't want to get into the demarcation against metaphysics. I do, however, have strong opinions on this as well. Kelby wrote: Are you basically asking: can science explain all the things religion claims to explain? I'm making the conjecture that science in the future will answer the core claims of religions and thereby reducing them to metaphysical assumptions more or less meaningful. wuliheron wrote: By definition religion deals with issues of faith, that is, beliefs for which there is no proof. These include such philosophical ideas as metaphysics which, again, by definition cannot be proven or disproven. Thus to assert that science will somehow prove or disprove all religious beliefs is to claim that science somehow can prove or disprove that which cannot be proven or disproven! This is even more ironic when you consider that philosophy also forms the foundation of the sciences. I find that religions are made up of a core of claims, not fully, but most importantly. These are usually the answers to existence, consciousness, and infinity. In the past, I have been thinking that religions make equal claims in that they basically answer the same issues, but in a different way. Lately, though, I have come to believe that if I make the conjecture that science in the future will answer the core questions, religions will fall away and be redefined as "religions" that make a bunch of metaphysical claims. I think it also includes that science in the future will present an uniform belief system to all people living at that point in time. This may present a significant change, I suppose.

Posted Jun 20, 2009 - 12:18 PM: How to help the homeless?

"How to help the homeless?"

I think the best way is to make a demand in the political system that homeless people should have a decent offer of a place to stay whether it's sleeping halls or something else. Obviously, I sympathise with the political systems that have this in place. Basically, I find the requirement of minimum wage and the guarantee to have a place to stay very compatible and useful. Perhaps one can avoid crime to some degree if homeless people are not required to live like animals. Also, perhaps people get more calm when this abyss of atrocity is closed.

Posted Jun 19, 2009 - 7:56 PM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

If one gets access to infinity by future-science, it should also become clear what the fundamental reason for our presence is. Thereby, the question why we exist, is relieved and no longer is needed to be asked. Likewise, if we get to decide by future-science what consciousness stems from and how life comes into being, religion is so utterly reduced to insignificance that there is no need for it. All the fundamental questions will have been answered by future-science. So therefore, the conclusion has to be that the question of demarcation against religion may only be a question of what one ascribes to the capacity of future-science. As one can assert this belief, even only hypothetically, it shows that the demarcation issue against religion is indeed impossible. There you have it! There is no wonder why it has been so bloody hard to make the demarcation against religion.

Posted Jun 19, 2009 - 2:59 PM: Demarcation against Religion - Is it in vain?

What I want to make a conjecture of, I believe, will have an easier solution than Hilberts 8. problem. The conjecture! It seems to me that to make the conjecture that science will be able to describe every problem of religious kind including the question of the existence of God or such, eclipse every religious claim and therefore I make the conjecture hereby that the demarcation-against-religion-work in Philosophy of Science is futile and in vain because in reality, I suspect, every question answered by religion will be solved by science absolving every neeed of demarcation against religion. Though I find the strange, perhaps paradoxical situation that demarcation against metaphysics still stands. Of course, when I write this I make a number of assumptions in both religious issues as well as scientific ones.

Posted Jun 19, 2009 - 2:50 PM: Not all religions can be correct - Why do I believe a Christian but not a Hindu?

Yahadreas, remember that Yahweh and Allah belong to monotheistic religions. I also believe they are more obscure, while Zeus and Odin belong to polytheistic religions and are more firm to the degree that believing in them is obviously contrary to nature. Something like that... I like your point, Dawoel. A lot of the religiousness is culturally contingent.

Posted Jun 19, 2009 - 6:16 AM: God exists - Two arguments

I'm with Incision on the matter that to God the creation of the universe may not be anymore a value judgment than to breathe or shake one's pants. I also think that this universe shows a necessary pattern of how every other universe has to be, that God's way of creation is uniform and that there is a 100% chance that life exists in it in some form or other. Necessarily, rules of logic exist in every possible universe and I think the physics also represent a kind of logic in this regard. I think some people are too quick to latch onto the scientific explanation of why we exist. No matter how you see it, it's nonetheless extremely fantastic and that explanations equate one another when it comes to the reason of our existence. The concept of God is therefore not anymore fantastic than anything else.

Posted Jun 18, 2009 - 4:33 PM: Uneducated definite descriptions - What if I don't know about the person I'm naming?

Bertrand Russell is aiming for the things like "king of France (who is living now) is bald" and "Pegasus" with his paper "On Denoting" (1905). By making an existential quantification of definite descriptions, he is making it more clear what kind of status regarding reality the definite descriptions should have. Contentious stuff isn't really entailed by his proposal the way I see it. I don't know if I understand you properly, Incision. At one point, you make the assumption: I know about Paul is that he's the webmaster (and whatever that entails) Then you continue with: I say "Paul," I just mean "the x such that x is the webmaster of PF." This seems to me to be correct. I'm not going to enter the modal logic debate of the kind Kripke is so obsessed with. The conclusion you draw puzzles me: Then Paul is necessarily the webmaster of PF, which is false. It appears correct to me to still assume the correctness of "Paul is the webmaster of the PF-forum" as you have already made that assumption by what you have stated first that is "I know about Paul is that he's the webmaster (and whatever that entails)"! That Paul is also the webmaster of some Economics-forum doesn't change the fact that he is the webmaster of the PF-forum. I don't think you are obliged to add every fact to the quantification as long as you stay within the boundary of your understanding. So when you state "Uneducated definite descriptions", you are already outside that boundary of known declarations and I think that is not what Bertrand Russell aims for with his theory.

Posted Jun 18, 2009 - 4:20 AM: An Attack on Indexicality

bert1 wrote: What makes 'the given location' the location where bert1 is? "Given" is a short for a more comprehensive description of information that is not included in the situation that is being analysed. It is always possible to give that kind of information. This is part of the argument against the necessity of indexicals. As a quick response: twin people, twin planets and everything else that is a twin to something is usually given a separating name otherwise it runs counter to the custom of giving names. Twin objects with the same name are counter to intelligence.

Posted Jun 17, 2009 - 7:09 PM: Split Brain - Where am "I"?

I think consciousness is necessarily waved to one or the other half and that the remaining part is just merely a dead part of that former consciousness. The OP of this is very exaggerated. Are you entertaining us?

Posted Jun 16, 2009 - 12:41 PM: Knowledge: is the justification condition needed?

Without the justification-criterion, how are you supposed to know who's holding the very true belief? Beliefs are held in one's head and there will be no way to differentiate between two opposing views or two views at all. Indeed, everything may be granted as true beliefs as soon as it is thrown into the air, comes out of the mouth. As the logic goes, without proper justification, one is not guaranteed that true beliefs are ever found because the true beliefs are not intuitive or plausible hence Einsteins theory or other.

Posted Jun 8, 2009 - 1:37 AM: Are "control freaks" ruling the world?

Usually, the control in the hands of control freaks is regulated by law. Too much control is illegal. My impression, however, is that when people complain about "control freaks", they are slightly paranoid which may not be so good.

Posted Jun 6, 2009 - 8:10 PM: Can causation ever be demonstrated? - As opposed to correlation?

I just like to remark that causation is usually considered a metaphysical issue and is equally difficult. I think I can say right away that no-one can in an exact way demonstrate or describe causation. We can point to endless occurrences that we take for cause and effect, but we will always be set apart from it.

Posted Jun 4, 2009 - 11:02 PM: Is ethics too emotional to actually be rationalised?

What else is making us act apart from our consciousness? I certainly think that reason is part of this consciousness. I strongly disagree with emotivism. I think the betrayal by lying can really fast be viewed by your mind and this betrayal is in turn readily, hypothetically applied against yourself and is thus found to be invalid as an action. So it goes with every moral act, your mind can imagine the consequences and also imagine a new standard of behaviour applied to yourself. Maybe reason can internalise the morals and express them in emotions?

Posted May 23, 2009 - 10:59 AM: My paper for phil-201 re: Zenos paradox of motion

If you view it from Zeno, you first cover the first half of the distance and then the next half of that half distance remaining and so on until there is an incredibly small half remaining of the total distance. If you begin covering the distance on the opposite end of the argument, you begin with the smallest half first and it seems to me it's almost impossible to make such a small step of a relatively short distance. Is it good?

Posted May 22, 2009 - 6:23 PM: My paper for phil-201 re: Zenos paradox of motion

To turn the argument around, it should be quite clear that no-one who aims to get somewhere never begins their journey with such an incredibly small step. Let's imagine this person has a walk over to the neighbour.

Posted May 3, 2009 - 10:58 AM: Can't debating be counter-productive?

The discussion may also be seen as highlighting the best ideas there are regarding the debate topic. If you think a particular idea appeals to you then you choose it, I suppose. A discussion may also be used to find common ground, but it requires compromises [(usually)].

Posted May 2, 2009 - 8:47 PM: My name is not spelled as it seems to be.

Why do you twist meme to Meem? Is it like me to me symmetric around an axis? I find the meme theory a waste of time. I think ideas are kept alive because of some kind of virtue. What extra do you get for naming ideas memes? What's the benefit of the theory? The theory is no more functional than viewing ideas for what they are. Perhaps you want to warn people against some ideas, but so be it. "Oh, no! The memes are coming..."

Posted May 2, 2009 - 8:13 PM: Do you consider death important for life?

1) I think death is irrelevant to my life. I'm on this planet Earth and I'm going to live life to the best degree possible according to my values. I've no clue to what death actually is except that my body becomes lifeless. I guess it will be the moment I get to experience whether the soul exists or not. There I go, just accumulating knowledge as time passes, enjoying the revelations, miracles and mysteries of life. 2) Just as death is irrelevant to my life, so is suffering irrelevant for my happiness. My happiness is when I experience events that appear and disappear as they should. I master issues, love, devote, enjoy pleasure, create, construct and wonder. When time elapse according to plan and scope and without any real suffering, I'm really happy.

Posted May 2, 2009 - 3:00 PM: Globalization of trade

I think the Globalization of trade is definitely good! Thanks to globalization, we can get a very good understanding of other people and their situation. Eventually, the inherent sympathy to others will lead to a world of equality and respect. I also think it will prevent wars between trading nations. Two negative examples of nations not being well enough embedded in globalization of trade, are Afghanistan and Pakistan. One looks to those places and one finds extreme Islamism of people willing to commit suicide to cause chaos and disruption, seemingly against infidels. So we should work to get those countries into the fold as well, perhaps beginning with cooperation within the education sector.

Posted May 2, 2009 - 10:48 AM: Deconstructing Your Identity.

jsawvel wrote: So, how can you deconstruct your identity and adopt a new one? This is impossible for me. I'm already fully myself. Do you mean that people should incorporate "the darker side" of themselves if such a thing exists? I imagine that it might be fun to work out a way to identify your own perception of yourself by fMRI or MR.

Posted May 1, 2009 - 12:59 PM: Your take on religion.

J. Random Hacker wrote: Here's a list of religions based on size. Please pick out the ones that don't believe in the supernatural. ... Scientology: 500 thousand Scientologists believe in the union of the mind and body they call Thetan, maybe some call it Soul. Scientologists believe in the infinity dynamic, 8. dynamic, maybe some call it God. Scientologists believe in engrams, unconscious restraints on your abilities, maybe some call them slightly unfounded or unscientific, at least today. What is there exactly that is supernatural in Scientology? I can't find anything there! Please, make sure you get the reference to the book right!

Posted Apr 30, 2009 - 6:04 PM: Can Socratic method break down its own principle?

TMB wrote: Are you suggesting that SM should be done away with and when Socrates was debating someones proposition he should have just given his own point of view on what he thought the answer was, rather than pick away at the holes in the others proposition? If so, surely he would have to know the answer upfront and also know exactly what the other was driving at. Socrates professed to know nothing, except his own ignorance, so this would have been a stretch. If Socrates is such a genious, why can't he come up with a great suggestion to a problem? He doesn't have any and his very skeptical attitude makes him impotent. You know, this "Socrates professed to know nothing", don't you know about your neighbour, the ceramic jugs, the boats, the crops, the houses, your son's birthday and a lot of other propositions? I think it's rubbish.

Comparing Democritus', Leucippus' suggestion of the atom and Socrates' ignorance, I find it striking that there are significant differences in beautiful thinking and non-effective thinking represented respectively.

Posted Apr 30, 2009 - 3:42 PM: Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

If you sense the macro-effect of substance, is it not reasonable to say substance definitely exists? If you deny this, it seems to me you are in the same group of people who deny it's impossible to know any true proposition whether social in nature, human-made artifacts or whatever else.

Nice post, Incision, but... "(n + 2) Possibly necessarily no necessary being exists. (Obvious truth)" - As we exist in reality in the first place, is it not reasonable to say that something necessarily makes out the foundation of this reality?

Posted Apr 30, 2009 - 3:52 AM: Performative Utterances and Scientific Papers

Cuthbert, thanks for your response. The object of truth is more obvious in scientific papers as that is it's main contribution. The functions of the speech-acts you mention are auxiliary as they essentially only help continuing enterprise of science. The pragmatics is reduced to an addendum to semantics once again.

Posted Apr 30, 2009 - 3:27 AM: Can Socratic method break down its own principle?

TMB wrote: What do you mean by negative? When a suggestion is given, it's shown to be false. There are no descriptions that suffice in the Socratic dialogues as it ends it with resignation and hopelessness. TMB wrote: That the person with the proposition had his argument colllapse and expose his ignorance; that nothing further was illuminated about the topic by approaching it this way; something else? Something like that, yes. Socratic dialogues: I sense a mediocre attempt to give a valuable solution to a problem and then the ignorance emerges. Very good, eh.., not! TMB wrote: I do not understand your response. Are you saying that if SM is used to try and validate a proposition, that the response should always be straight and sound? I am pretty sure that the process of SM does start like that, but further questioning on matters philosophical probably opens up many unanswered questions that sooner or later lead to the propositions undoing Just focus the efforts to express the best possible explanation you can think of and forget about the SM! Is it clear?

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 6:31 PM: Universe=God

Speculation: infinite number of gods from people who have passed away? Some gods better than others? Do you believe in reincarnation, too? I'm not intending to bother you. You don't need to answer. "Infinite gods", you are the first one from whom I hear that. That's quite new. There is no origin in literature to your religious belief? God and universe. I think my first post in this thread is sufficient.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 3:06 PM: Life for the Unattractive

This thread is probably an exaggeration, but I find it disciplinary. People should make an effort to look a little good, play the theater in life to keep the dread of daily routine away.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 2:50 PM: Performative Utterances and Scientific Papers

I don't think it's a wrongful assertion to say that the language in a scientific paper is more elaborate and exhaustive in regard to coincidences and the rest than the very daily life where people have fun with ambiguities and suffer the misunderstandings.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 2:23 PM: Performative Utterances and Scientific Papers

I don't think you answer what I'm asking. Can we agree that Austin's argument is more appealling in the daily life than in a given scientific paper? Maybe, I just speculate, Austin has been thinking about the usual life of people while Frege and Grice are caught up in their scientific environment, thus the given angles in the field.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 2:15 PM: personality types

In the giant compilation of psychology, the 120yrs it's been around, there are indications and histories that give up common traits and abilities in people. It's a quick way to get a grip of people without acknowledging it truthful like the physics. People are normal and in the abnormal cases I bet there are the usual descriptions as well, ie. people behave in a certain way and when they don't, they behave in a certain abnormal way. The conclusion must be that the accumulated work in psychology is worthwhile to read about.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 12:43 PM: personality types

I have doubts about this. I think there is a place that says that this is unscientific, but so be it. I have the results from http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html. I have chosen the "Jung Tests I-E S-N F-T J-P**" and "Short test, 53 questions". I have fallen into: INTJ - "Mastermind". Introverted intellectual with a preference for finding certainty. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 2.1% of total population. This is just in case I'm not lying. He-he-he-ho-ho, you will never know!