Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 10

Post subject: In what ways is a Human Being more than an animal? PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:28 pm

Humans build sciences and corresponding technology. To our knowledge, animals just live in the nature and evolve.

Post subject: Acting on faith is a universal human condition PostPosted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:38 am

At Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:04 am mark black writes: "It's not the same kind of faith."
I say it is the exactly same faith. You should separate dogmatism and belief in religion. If the assertion of God or anything like it can be a scientific assertion, it is!
At Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:22 pm mark black writes: "Religion cannot claim to have the same epistemic standards as scientific knowledge - and thus it's wrong to equate the two."
Why not? The only difference I see, is the fact that science is declared and religious beliefs are undeclared.
I think there are numerous phenomena like the miracle of life that points to an equally miraculous ultimate solution to it all. When you are on the fringes of science in making avantgarde conjectures and experiments what are you supposed to believe? It can make a revolution and it surely holds no particular rule of what it is! There are the usual guidelines of scientific soundness, but consequences of discoveries of new principles of nature are sure big and yields great impact when they occur.
There are 3 possibilities of conceded defeat to extinguished life the way atheists see it:
* The living turns to the dead material of rocks and mountains.
* The living fail to habitate other galaxies and is extinguished when the sun explodes in some hundreds of thousands of years.
* The living dies out when the universe gets cold from the expansion of it where energy is spread so thin that there are no new formations of stars and planets and so on.
I, as an eternal optimist, think we will transcend all of this. I’m a believer!

Post subject: Transhumanism, w/some nihilist & hedonistic thoughts PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:58 pm

bus2bondi writes:
"[E]ventually a species that solves all of its problems will succumb to an eternal tedium: if death, illness, poverty, need and pain are eventually abolished, won't existence merely progress until everyone just sits around pressing the button to stimulate the electrodes in their brains (because they've heard all the stories, and it's still more fun than anything else)?"
I think we need to presuppose that the future is SMART if that kind of progress is achieved. To sit around and stimulate the electrodes in their brains is certainly not smart. The human kind would decay! Besides, I feel there is a limitation to what I quote. Why don't we then go on to create new worlds and even universes or entire new dimensions? Possibly, it may be turning into God once again and there we go again!

Post subject: Transhumanism, w/some nihilist & hedonistic thoughts PostPosted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:37 am

I think the 'rapture of the 'nerds'' is the way to go! Perhaps, not so much rapture, but certainly nerds. There is the issue of knowledge that I find the most important of all. I do not say you should ignore your physical side, mind you.

Post subject: Three kinds of intelligence. PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:50 pm

I am of the sense that intelligence exists where life exists, perhaps also in a religious sense, but that is a different matter.
I am wondering at times what information it is that ripples through the DNA and cells in general in the tiny entities and others by the bio-electrical machinery. I wonder at all how the smallest beings processes and how the signals of those processes determines these cell-sized beings.

Post subject: Three kinds of intelligence. PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:07 pm

When I say that intelligence exists where life exists, I just mean the functional intelligence, that you mention, but also that hint of quality that makes the tiny entities alive and that which differentiates them from one another in addition, of course, to the possibility to develop, to evolve.
mark black writes: "What's the scientology position on evolution?"
Scientology is quite close to science and I believe that within the movement, evolution is well accepted, although I suspect Mr. Hubbard has gauged his audience of deeply religious US citizens and kept it somewhat silent. There is no problem with accepting that we are on the top of the food chain and that we are leading the living world into immortality and infinity. Well, you can perhaps leave the last sentence out.

Post subject: Three kinds of intelligence. PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:21 pm

Generally, I try to keep a strict division between Philosophy of Science and Religion. I think there is great value in keeping tight the various disciplines of Philosophy and as we are now in the very thread of Philosophy of Science, I don't want to comment on the Religion of any kind.

Post subject: Need Help Choosing a Religion PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:59 am

I suggest that you can make wise choice of going outside Christianity by either Deism that isn't really organised or Scientology.
A strength of them is ethics like the Ten Commandments, modified or not, or the declaration of human rights.
Christianity, if you want it, is to me filled with paradoxes. Some of these paradoxes are the singular events of miracles like parting a river or the biggest one of them all, to kill a God incarnate, Jesus, for the sake of our sins, not mine, mind you. Also, by Christianity you will face problems of documentation. I mean Jesus may turn out to be a combination of a hundred people doing miracles recorded by squinting witnesses or by people of poor memory or countless other flaws.

Post subject: Need Help Choosing a Religion PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:48 pm

Gustaf wrote:
"You are calling teachings of your Church - teaching that some people pay $50,000 or more to get - nonsense!?"
Some of the teachings of my CoS might be nonsense, just in case the Xenu-matter and other such drivel. People pay for the most crazy ideas and crack cocaine. To simply pay for something doesn't make it right.
Gustaf wrote:
"In any case, the Church of Scientology claims that its teachings have strong scientific backing. Do you dispute that?"
Maybe CoS has strong scientific backing to the extent they can have that. I find it hard to believe that any religion can have strong scientific backing. It seems contradictory.
Gustaf wrote:
"If not, what is the strong scientific backing for the Xenu story?"
The Xenu story has no strong scientific backing in my opinion.
Gustaf wrote:
"Is there any reason to believe that being a Clear allows you to do anything beyond impressing lesser Scientologists? CoS makies considerable claims about abilities of Clears - what are your views of those claims?"
Having the right belief makes you better able and insofar Clears have that right belief, they are better able.

Post subject: Wheres the big bang point? PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:22 pm

Maybe these can help:
Alright, I'm interested, but it turns out I haven't found the point either.

Post subject: Why do you philosophise? Be honest! PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:47 pm

I philosophise to challenge my mind, puzzling and to try to come up with better answers and questions.
Hallelujah, philosophy is my religion!

Post subject: Why is 'the truth' so important? PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:05 am

I would like to cite Science, Truth, and Democracy by Philip Kitcher:
"...famous verse from the New Testament: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.""
There is another one, too:
"...scientific inquiry (red.: Truth) would enable people to live lives of superior quality."
Military science (truth) has been in the service of rulers at least since the Middle Ages.
As for lying, I would let the Jew-hunting Nazi pass to the next door if I don't assault the person and do the person off.

Post subject: Richard Swinburne! PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:38 pm

I just want to introduce Richard Swinburne to the Forum. He seems to me to be a true master in Philosophy of Religion. I have a few links to begin with:
I also hope we can discuss his works in this thread. Initially, I am not too interested in Philosophy of Religion (PoR), but I'm impressed with this guy.

Post subject: paradox PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:39 pm

the more you know, the greater your action ratio
the more you have, also the greater your action ratio
Conclusion - More IS more
We are Human Beings, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and we should explore the universe in every sense.

Post subject: Human Beings as Rational Beings PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:12 pm

Leibniz and Conway suggest mind is made up of a different kind of stuff: Monades. I think it is an interesting perspective. Please mind that the physical picture of nature described by physics is NOT complete. I think that is important to be aware of.
By the way, electrons are a kind of quark as are of course ups and downs quarks too. The quarks are collected in a system named the Standard Model. There are way more quarks than up, down, electrons and photons. You have the top, bottom, charm, strange and so on... Here is a link:
I guess some of the position of the question is given by religion whether it is the atheist (a kind of religion, bla, bla) or Christianity or something else. The atheist account is like the evolutionary explanation, we have evolved from micro-organisms to four-limbed, biped, erect beings and with the possibilities thereof comes writings in the sand, making of fire, activity of science, craftmanship, artistry and the rest. One question and it sounds like the hen and the egg: does the biological possibilities make us rational and if not, is the whale rational?

Post subject: Does humankind have a future? PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:03 pm

Jetsetjason wrote:
"...why should humans last forever?"
Because we are so smart!

Post subject: Who Are We To Believe? PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:37 am

I just want to point out that there is no war between nations of today and I also bet that it is not the case of ancient times where times of war is rife. Times of today are more civic and trade and urbanization will put wars, even civil ones, into non-existence.

Post subject: Naturalism and positivism PostPosted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:50 am

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy by General Editor, Robert Audi. ISBN 052148328X
It even has a quote of Richard Rorty in it.
Richard Rorty wrote:
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is very comprehensive, thoroughly up-to-date, and probably the best short reference book in English on philosophy.
The dictionary is only one volume. Now, the dictionary contains both the concepts of naturalism and positivism. I also hold that the two concepts refer mainly to Philosophy of Science.
Naturalism: “the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities – those studied in the sciences (on some versions, the natural sciences) – whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included, abstracta (abstract entities) like possibilia (possibilities) and mathematical objects, if they exist, being constructed of such abstracta as the sciences allow; and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are commensurable, in some sense, with those in science."
Positivism (logical positivism):
The Philosophy of Science, Couvalis wrote:
... developed an empiricist account that used the new formal techniques to produce a daring new view of the nature of science, logic and language. They hoped to eliminate metaphysics from the domain of significant discourse by proposing an account of the nature of meaning according to which terms derive much of their meaning directly from experience.
The book is: The Philosophy of Science - Science and Objectivity by George Couvalis ISBN 0761951016.

Post subject: Man's Mind Problem is our problem PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

I am to some extent in sympathy with Socrates when he points out traps in our views of reality. I also think he displays a degree of flamboyancy in his rhetoric. If he is such a genius of his time, why isn't he contributing more to the science of his time like Aristotles.
I must say I support the wise men of science in his time and the artisans and craftsmen, the ancient engineers if you will.
If you follow Socrates through I think you end up with indecision and action of futility.
In my own view, I hold that empiri is the crux of activity while withholding a priori considerations and an awareness of the limits of the mind so that I do not jump to conclusions.

Post subject: Probabilistic theories and underdetermination PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:47 pm

Are probabilistic theories expressions of underdetermination?
Somehow I think they are. Reality should be fixed like reflections of gravity and other phenomena we never doubt.
Probabilistic theories are like temporary work that may one day change if we can identify underlying laws seemingly resulting in probabilistic theories.

Post subject: Probabilistic theories and underdetermination PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:32 am

I take the example of gravity as as a law of nature and I expect ALL other relationships to be likewise laws of nature in the same infallible manner. I think to the very minute level these relationships are determinate as described (as laws of nature).

Post subject: Probabilistic theories and underdetermination PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:59 pm

As a 'reflection of gravity' meaning an example of a law of nature, perhaps I can mention Snell's law describing the travel of light from one substance into another and thereof the implications.
As a law of nature I also mention thermodynamics. There should be many more to mention. I'm also aware of the many probabilistic theories within physics but I'm unable to mention any.

Post subject: Reductionism and Non-reductionism PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:28 am

How can you decide what position to hold in Philosophy of Mind if you do not have the complete physical picture of nature?
I mean if you do not know what to reduce to or the opposite, what is the foundation of decision?
This puzzles me as I struggle to find a solid position for my views. As I see it, one can be swayed either way depending on what physics really can describe or hold.

Post subject: Gettier again PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:06 am

I have given it a shot. Here it is:
1. Let's say you have a 100% hunch to what you are looking for.
- The belief in p as well as the perceiver
2. Let's say you have a 100% data-material to what you are looking for.
- p
3. Let's say you have a 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit".
- The situation of acquisition of knowledge, the relation of the perceiver of p to p.
(4.) Sum: You have knowledge.
It is shaking a little so I combine with the classic tripartite definition of knowledge to make it stronger and to possibly break Gettier. At least it gives a new look. What I find to strengthen the solution are the facts that the relations are given in percentage which give the lines flexibility and the word integrity which is meant to close down the situation side of acquiring knowledge.

Post subject: Gettier again PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:24 am

I do not intend to propose the use of prediction in relation to what you quote of me. I find the Bayesian project quite futile and awkward. I do not believe in predicting events of invention or knowledge for that sake.
The intention behind it is that I believe there is a difference between researcher A and B. Researcher A is being more clever with his epistemology and more successful with his specific research project q, that is in acquiring knowledge. While researcher B is not so careful although having equal access to aids and tools and research material.
I present the lines of epistemology as a mere cautious suggestion of pinning down factors as a statement of affairs. I write again, it is not meant for prediction of anything at all. There is a consideration, though, that one can work out research cases one by one to state some sort of success factors. In this way there should exist generalities of what makes something successful and what fails. There may be a possibility in epistemology for sorting this out in parallel.
Oldal writes: "Reminiscent of Hume; the more improbable an event the stronger the evidence must be to elicit confidence in the explanation."
Hmm… If you compare the well cited transition from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics, is this the case? It takes a well educated person to separate the two. Isn’t this so? Both theories describe gravitation but one is more correct than the other. It’s just a suggestion.

Post subject: Intelligence Resigned...(An Agnostic Defence) PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:58 pm

Just the few thoughts:
God creates the world, all of it.
Big Bang creates the world, all of it.
God creates the Big Bang that creates the world.
A singular point of immense density creates the Big Bang that creates the world.
God creates the singular point.
Energy and mass is constant and whatever happens, happens.
I think the Intelligent Design and the Big Bang are not necessarily so far apart.
Besides, life is a crucial matter here. It is a pivotal point that life can't be made in the lab. As we see life and the living as something that must make the difference and we infer God and Intelligent Design. When we start making the living from dead material in the laboratory you will sway me more to the atheistic side.

I have now finished the addition of the Philosophy Now forum posts! I'll continue writing there indefinitely for all that I know. I proceed with the Philosophy Forums posts. They are forthcoming, I think.
Here are some of them. Please remember that the url to Philosophy Forums is

Posted Feb 21, 2010 - 1:13 PM: Subject: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness

By me, from
It's my opinion that Gödel's Theorems on this matter make either unreasonable assumptions on axioms or try to say too much, particularly on a system's axioms which may themselves, ultimately be hinged on a nature of infinity. It seems strange to me that Gödel's "Incompleteness" is about not being able to prove the axioms from within the given system. In my opinion, every "idiot" goes only for consistent and Gödel "incomplete" systems. This should be clear! I see no problem with the descriptive power of this system as a consequence of Gödel "incompleteness".
If Gödel's two theorems are to kick in, the human viewpoint would have to be completely different and the ontological status of infinity soundly removed, but this is clearly not the case today.
The theorems of Incompleteness should thus be renamed Theorems of Non-Self-Reference or Theorems of Non-Tautology.
Drawing from the Philosophy of Science, I see the creation of systems like (non-Euclidean geometry and) Fuzzy Logic, being only (two) one example(s), as sliding in nicely with existing systems and this should also be kept in mind when you regard the whole story of various systems through the course of human evolution.
(Wild) questions:
Are the Gödel theorems of incompleteness contradictions? Are they begging for the impossible, implicitly?
Are the theorems controversial?
What kind of system is it the theorems ask for?
I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?
For educational purposes: How do you build something without having a world to build something in first? Why question the building materials you've selected when you're making a building? How do you prove your "Universe of Discourse"? I sense there's something "sick" about imposing a requirement of being able to prove the establishment of the world that's going to support your descriptions. What I'm saying is that Gödel's "incompleteness" is negligible as opposed to other possible meanings of "incompleteness".
Originally written 07.02.2010 and 11.02.2010.
I see a small victory by naming the Proofs by the Theorems of incompleteness for Gödel "incompleteness" because I don't think "normal" people really think of Gödel "incompleteness" as incompleteness at all! What do you think?

Posted Feb 7, 2010 - 8:46 AM: Subject: Question about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem

I've been thinking that you can add as many axioms to a system you'd like in order to have the useful scope of descriptive tools you'd like. That these axioms can't be proved by the very same system, can't hardly be a problem, no?

Posted Feb 7, 2010 - 12:50 PM: Subject: Question about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem

Hasn't it always been a "game of axioms"? Axioms don't come by themselves. They do represent hard work. So you say that the identification of the various axioms to a system makes this a different system than it's supposed to establish in the first place? You probably would like to introduce some kind of language-gaming element to every system there is then, yes?

Posted Feb 17, 2010 - 2:40 PM: verifiability vs falsifiability Karl Popper's objection

A small comment: you may want to replace verifiability with confirmation to run along with falsifiability as they are pretty much the sides of the same coin. There are important reasons of why verifiability has failed, such as needing to definitely know the truth before you verify it. At least, I think it's somewhat old-fashioned to stick to the verifiability criterion when it's much better supported by the confirmation criterion, best espoused by Carl Hempel (probably by many others as well).

Post subject: Re: U.S. American Patriotic Radicalism - in Financial Terms PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:29 am

Introductory note: consider this writing the second part of OP, 2/2, and the above as 1/2, please.
Considerations for 1939 - 1946.
[Edit2:] Countering the question of involvement of Ford and its factories in Germany, the most important question in my opinion is how much goods has been imported into Germany, esp. from USA, let's say for the period of 1933 to 1941?
To what extent can one say that any imports from USA have contributed to the Nazi-German war machine?
And lastly, what about the sponsoring, the acquisition of funds, money or resources whatever to Nazi-Germany? Did they acquire money from abroad? To what extent? [End of edit.]
Considerations for 1939 - 1941.
[Edit, 25.02.2011:] New (I want to test some "signals" here): Can it also be that USA and Japan had an agreement over Pearl Harbour on the number of vessels that were allowed to dock with the harbour there and that if this (bilateral) clause was to be breached Japan would attack harshly? Thus, did USA also impel/provoke this attack and launch into war with Japan? [End of edit.]
Considerations for 1945 - 1946.
[Edit, 08.03.2011:] Did also USA nuke Tokyo into total destruction for avoiding the aftermath of the WW2 against the Japanese (that is, destroying the convention of settling the post-war matters with the Japanese in a "justified" way)? That is, if you have the "war"-documents stored in the Capital (by convention) and the enemy destroys the Capital so that the documents then it becomes impossible to settle a judgment of the war. This may be a motive by the USA to hide the initial crime of themselves to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour by harbouring too many ships/sea vessels there of the military kind. [End of edit.]
Considerations for 1930 - 1946.
[Edit2, 08.03.2011:] It must, though, be pointed out that the Japanese have been hard on their own neighbours for some time up to the point to the conflict with USA in WW2 and it can very well be that the Japanese have gotten what they deserved in the end after all. It has been an aggressive power through the whole of the 30s and has engaged in a number of conflicts up to 1945 and its unconditional surrender. I think this note undermines any fact that USA in any way willingly wanted a war with Japan, but rather, as it is uncontroversionally written, that USA has been assaulted in 1941 in Pearl Harbour. Just to clear some air. [End of edit.]
See above for considerations.
My assertion for the Ford V12 engines stems from a documentary I've seen.
See above for considerations.
"Burning Mexico" simply means the civil unrest there in relation to rife crime, possibly put to a higher level by insisted U.S. American exports of relatively advanced gunnery, i.e., large caliber weapons and what have you. The military walks the streets there which is a state of emergency, honestly speaking.
See above for considerations.
United Bananas you can check out yourselves. CBS 60 Minutes had it covered a while ago to some extent.
Considerations for August 12, 2000.
Further: SS KURSK
First it appeared that Kursk had sunk as a matter of malfunction by one of its torpedos (fuel failure, complex stuff) and this was allegedly confirmed by footage made by Norwegian underwater services (closest and ready with equipment).
Rather later, it appears that SS Kursk may have been sunk by an MK48 torpedo of the kind that USS Miami may have been equipped with as its location was rumoured to be close to the "accident" of SS Kursk. This was indeed the finding of the very excellent French journalism and that the entry hole in the front of Kursk is identical to a typical hole made by an MK48 torpedo!
The suggestion by this very topic makes it indeed likely that SS Kursk was sunk rather than suffered from a mishap simply because this topic envisions such behaviour from the U.S. Americans likely! Now, don't blame this "psychiatrist"/"psychologist" because that's obviously more joke than true, but still... Hmm... I'm still wearing my Sherlock Holmes outfit and it seems that the world makes this necessary in many aspects! Booo! Beware!
SS = Submersible Ship.
Considerations for 1985 - 2004(?).
[Edit, 15.04.2011:] Further on USA foreign policy. Relating to the State Department, USA is less than neutral in matter of aid and development to the developing world! Indeed, the UN has for a number of years recommended that this amount of money-value should be about 1 - 3% of GDP. The U.S. Americans can smile all they want, but I want it clear who they are and what their numbers are!
Thus, aid contribution from USA to the developing world speaks for itself: it stands at 0.001 % of GDP or so and has been this way for many, many years!!! So who are they to claim world leadership??? Because they are NOT world leaders!!!
Correction: It appears they do comply with new standards of contribution to the UN and also paying the highest amount of money. The source:! However, in the past, USA has been critisised for this for exactly this rule of 1 - 3 % GDP. [End of edit.]
[Edit, 10.05.2011:]
Considerations for 2001 - 2002(?).
I can note that it's evident that USA has little or no qualms over deceiving the whole world and the most prominent case for this is, of course, the case for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq (that didn't exist), presented to the UN Security Council and leading to the invasion of Iraq, with its many hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties!
I can also be noted that the direct negotiations between Iraq, by Saddam Hussein, and USA, right before the war, are kept secret (in the hidden, emphasis), for no apparent reason!
[End of edit.]
[Edit, 26.04.2011:]
Considerations for 1976 - 1979.
I'm going to add a point to the OP on East Timor and Noam Chomsky, from
"Chomsky argued that decisive military, financial and diplomatic support was provided to Suharto’s regime by successive U.S. administrations; beginning with Gerald Ford who, with Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State, provided a 'green light' to the brutal invasion. Prior to the invasion, the U.S. had supplied the Indonesian army with 90% of its arms, and "by 1977 Indonesia found itself short of weapons, an indication of the scale of its attack. The Carter Administration accelerated the arms flow. Britain joined in as atrocities peaked in 1978, while France announced that it would sell arms to Indonesia and protect it from any public "embarrassment". Others, too, sought to gain what profit they could from the slaughter and torture of Timorese.”[48] This humanitarian catastrophe went virtually unnoticed by the international community.[49]"
General considerations.
Not that I see it immensely critical, but I think it's useful that USA and U.S. American culture, especially in terms of business life and attitudes toward the the world outside USA, get its fair share of criticism and to large extent the duties (if not outright subversiveness on grounds of superior culture/genes) USA has failed in this regard. This is simply the overall point. That the world is brought level and that world power is now a lot of places and even shifting places, more rarely.
It must be the goal of any politics of the kind that belongs with the UN that people are indeed considered equal and subjects under The Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. This implies a lot of stuff!!! It has implications on how we share knowledge, how we behave in terms of business relations, internationally, and that world justice has a chance of rightful scrutiny and intra-country/state of justice can be mediated into its proper place. I also add, although earlier cited, that UN has the umbrella of ILO, the International Labour Organisation under its wings! This organisation can prove very important if not critical in the future!
[End of edit.]
Generally, considering the possibility for system and engineering I find it somewhat strange that society has this slow pace. If the good will would carry maximum weight and work effort, the world should have been looking different by now.
Also adding to the picture, the reported 42600 unsolved cases of ”disappeared” people in 82 countries by Amnesty International one may meditate over how many "monsters" there are out there in the world.
Even thinking about the "calm, sedate" Norway, at least I am thinking over the levels of corruption that lead people to run "meat shops", "torture clinics (some of which are "portable" and readily set up)" or "glass works", all of which harbour, potentially (cynically: yes, they are for real), all the sh*ttyness you can muster to swallow!
Even the small issues like adoption and childcare cases by the Childcare units/institution have their Kings and Queens of sh*t! You know, outright corruption!
So, what the heck to make of this grim picture?
A major concern is also to what extent U.S. American expertise is sponsoring European sh*ttyness and how they, cynically, undermine our good efforts, relating the "rules" to a certain kind of personality type they approve of in Europe just to spin this sh*t further. So, the "monsters" are sent abroad or let to chew on the lower social levels (esp. the homeless) and the good are confined/naively or by information held domestically, perhaps scared of the dangerous places abroad or subversely made so by their fellow U.S. American "wolves"/"monsters" when/if they go abroad.
[End of edit.]
Your turn. Cheers!
A small note on presentation of Wall Street by CNN and others: you get Alison Kosik to present numbers and reports and she has the education of a Bachelor of Arts by Political Science and Broadcasting Journalism! Why is this? Why should this political scientist be presenting numbers and reports from Wall Street unless they present this pretty face to you, facetiously, and yet have this powerful/brutal knock-down from behind, i.e., Political Science ([in the corrupt sense] to the World)! Not that I blame this person, but it's this bloody presentation and having the knowledge of this qualification!
The link to the presentation of her by CNN:
It says,
CNN writes:
"Kosik received her Bachelor of Arts degrees in Broadcast Journalism and Political Science from The American University in Washington, DC."
[Edit, 14.02.2011:] This thread is also an example of an interception for you wanna-be fighter pilots out there! :D :twisted:
[End of edit.]
[Edit, 11.04.2011:] Added the notion of the sinking of K-141 Kursk. It's not even part of the Wikipedia webpage on Kursk: [End of edit.]
[Edit, 26.04.2011:] I've added the notion of SS Kursk and its meaning, Submersible Ship. [End of edit.]
[Edit, 10.05.2011:] I've added notions on the invasion of Iraq today along with some time-scopes. [End of edit.]

Posted Feb 11, 2010 - 3:37 AM: The Efficiency Argument Efficiency as Demarcation - Suggestion

I don't think this carries much weight since the explanation still has to be as complete as possible. You still need to explain empirical meanings/consequences for example. To describe by minimum requirements doesn't mean that you leave something out of the picture or that you can leave something out of the picture, justifyingly.
I think the realists are well supported by this, being a scientific realist, myself.

Posted Feb 12, 2010 - 5:07 AM: The Efficiency Argument Efficiency as Demarcation - Suggestion

I've heard about QM experiments if you haven't. To suppose QM only lives in mathematics is to say that QM is merely mathematical beauty and speculation and this is simply not true!
Nicolaus Copernicus, 19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543
Tycho Brahe, 14 December 1546 – 24 October 1601
Johannes Kepler, December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630
I don't know exactly the foundation of Copernicus of why he concludes with the Heliocentric system, but I believe his observations lead him to this undeniable belief. Therefore, having this collection makes the notions of Brahe not really weighty to displace the Heliocentric system. You forget/"forget" to mention that the system of Brahe is a "Geo-Helio-centric" system. Brahe also makes a few distinctions to the theory of his (one of many) predecessor, Copernicus. Kepler, being in dissent to Brahe, tries to convince Brahe to accept the Heliocentric view. There's clearly disagreement in this period in science while I think your post suggests that the "world" accepts the Brahe view as reality (which isn't true).
It may very well be that Brahe enters a scientific debate rather than being the epitome of re-established Geocentric view. I don't know if the Heliocentric view has been overturned after its establishment. I find this hard to believe. So, perhaps, one should look into how the Heliocentric view has fared in history of science before one jumps to conclusions.
It's incredibly interesting what you point out, that Brahe falls back on the Geocentric view when in fact the Heliocentric view has been before him. Very well, I'll look into it (then, future interest).
If one goes through the material very tediously, I believe the course of science (progression) is perfectly aligned with The Efficiency Argument. If not The Efficiency Argument, then at least my version of Cumulativism in the expression of Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology, (ICT). Here:

Posted Feb 14, 2010 - 2:12 PM: The Efficiency Argument Efficiency as Demarcation - Suggestion

There may be cognitive reports of crazy people reporting demons in their heads and that this activity can be traced using the (f)MR(I) machine, beyond that there's nothing in your post that enters The Efficiency Argument (TEA). Remember that TEA focus on the theory/explanation that's produced and what is efficient with your example? Does it enable me in any degree to navigate the "landscape" of demons and their behaviour?

Posted Feb 15, 2010 - 1:13 PM: The Efficiency Argument Efficiency as Demarcation - Suggestion

You can disregard the references to the three philosophers. They are not important to the argument, but they have been and are inspiration, one "friend", two "foes".
I have the ideal of perfectly formulated theories and laws of nature, not being expressed in any probability/statistics rating, but it's important to take notice that good scientific work also investigates causal directions and can in the bare being also be only descriptive.
1. should be a formality.
So having the view that probabilities are mostly representative and working as a descriptive tool and always are underdetermined, I think it's important to see what leads up to these percentages and as such the theories and laws are not the most important, maybe.

Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 6:14 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?

jaoman writes: "Also, do you know that Ethics/Morals were composed by the Greeks, whose religious foundation was sharply different from anything in modern times? Indeed, Greek Ethics/Morals have very little to do with religion."
It doesn't take away the problem that's issued here, you! smiling face Besides, Greek belief may still indicate a kind of naturalistic Religion, but I'm at loss to be specific. It's still early thought and that particularly should mean something in this relation, moving from Polytheism to Monotheism, f.x.

Posted Jan 4, 2010 - 6:28 PM: A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists - I dare you! Are you ready to face the consequences?

jaoman writes: "If early thought arrives at the idea of Ethics and Morals without appealing to religious authority, surely mature thought is still capable of the same feat."
While the Greek have been busy describing the world at that stage, we now face this dichotomy of "humans as limited organisms, only existing in a span of time" and "humans as eternal, immortal beings, having a kind of place in the Universe/God's Heaven". It may very well be for this reason, that Greek thought has been taking care of more mundane concerns and also been having the underpinning/assumption of human kind coming to the natural end whatever it may be to the world they may well think to exist infinitely. We now know the sun is going to swallow earth, not to mention other concerns or opportunities our advanced Astronomy gives us! There are surely differences! I think you have to see this, too!

No comments:

Post a Comment