Post subject: Re: Religious Philosophers PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:34 pm
i blame blame writes: "So if we were living 150 years ago, you would say that propagation of light has a fantastic explanation and god makes it propagate? Also, diseases come and go fantastically and god directly afflicts people with them..."
Yes! It doesn't mean however, that I would let my faith determine the possibilities in the actual life. I'd keep working on the problems of that day and see what remains at the time of my death. More clearly, one is first and foremost the scientist and beyond that one is in religious faith, deism.
Post subject: Re: Why is abortion necessary? PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:01 pm
I have chosen to add the link: http://family.jrank.org/pages/2/Abortion-Reasons-Abortions.html.
I'd say that extremely few abortions are truly necessary, but I'm in favour of those carried out still the same. People should be given the best possible environment when they come to life.
Post subject: Satyr's critique of Descartes' Meditations PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:41 am
Yes, the "I" is the thing that thinks and doubts, that keeps the thoughts in line and in system, ie. in the sequence to process whatever thoughts that are to be recalled, invented, inferred, whatever. Yes, this is "I"!
Post subject: Re: Satyr's critique of Descartes' Meditations PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:44 pm
For the first part: (I find it uncontroversial to equal the "I" with mind.) If I compare the mind to a digital recorder that you can hold in your hands, will you say that the recorder is a process because the content changes on its recording medium? I don't think so!
Taking this further, let's say that the mind is expressed in matter in the form of brain so that we can identify the mind with the brain, do you say that the brain is only a process because the content of the brain changes, increases? I don't think so! Even so, when the brain dies, it's reduced to its basic constituents, are you then saying that even these constituents are processes because they have been part of that brain? I don't think so!
At the end of this, I certainly don't need to call the mind a thing, I only need to call it an entity, its nature still unknown to us!
For the second part, I have the sense that I'm doing good philosophical work and I try to improve it continuously. You probably say the same about yourself. My work is generally founded in the academic philosophy, that I build on those subjects and use a minimum of description when I make the expression of this work. There is no excess in my descriptions apart from that which is made as clarification and conveyance.
Post subject: Re: Goodman's Paradox - Reducing It Ad Absurdum PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:23 am
I think that if you introduce life-worlds into the picture, this changes as the life-world is only your experience. So when you (ala1993) add I know that swans are white, there's already incompleteness in it, just as much as if we get exhaustive knowledge of all on earth and say swans are both black and white, we are still limited because there may be pink swans on Hitatutus in Andromeda galaxy. It's unnatural and strange to put it this way, but that's the consequence. Further one should add the dates: swans are known on earth, 1810 to 2009, before that there may be extinct pink and blue swans. We are limited, definitely.
"The word "grue" hardly means anything to people, especially outside those familiar with Goodman's P. It seems also unreasonable that if you say something means "grue" because green is to be blue sometime in the future, the future will always remain the future and the word "grue" remains meaningless. It's funny though how the paper of Goodman puts meaning to "grue" when one considers existence."
"What is a good point in attacking Goodman's P. is the fact that these changes are clearly implausibly limited to only emeralds, they can be equally distributed to every other object in the external world. I therefore write:
"Finally, if one property of say green emeralds is to change, how can he limit this time-set change to only emeralds? Why can't you equally well have objects beginning to levitate?" Of course, that objects suddenly are supposed to begin to levitate is extremely implausible."
"Finally, if one property of say green emeralds is to change, how can he limit this time-set change to only emeralds? Why can't you equally well have objects beginning to levitate?" Of course, that objects suddenly are supposed to begin to levitate is extremely implausible."
I've made a solution to the Problem of Induction that you can find on the link below or in the Philosophy of Science section in this forum. It may be that it's possible to remove induction alltogether! I believe Paradox of the Ravens, Goodman's Paradox and The Problem of Induction are mentioned together in the literature. I've written about them here: http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html all the way since 2000.
Post subject: Re: Goodman's Paradox - Reducing It Ad Absurdum PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:25 pm
Am I wrong in attacking Goodman's play with time? If he gets away with his play with time, am I wrong in attacking him in the sense that he so selectively choose emeralds (why can't it be anything or everything else?) and colour (why can't it be any other quality, property or all?). By combining all this and more, I think Goodman's Paradox falls. This is also a part of my argument: "When we are in the world, we experience continuity in a consistent and coherent way. The thoughts flow naturally through our minds. When we have these properties working in our minds and these minds are in the world, why shouldn't it be reasonable the same properties of reality that make our minds work so smoothly also govern the matters that are external to us? My point is, of course, that time is so fundamental that there is no room for properties to change as a function of time."
Rortabend writes: "Our observations of all emeralds being green in the past is perfectly compatible with the inductive claim that 'All emeralds are green' and with the claim that 'All emeralds are green'. The scandal of induction, as Hume put it, is that there doesn't seem to be any way of justifying our preference for green over grue."
Why don't we turn into Pegasuses or for that reason why don't we just die for no reason or turn into meat pulp? There are clearly deductions you can make as we exist in this world with functioning bodies, reproduction, survival, evolution, progress, the whole of our lives without any necessity to be a human for 5000 years first. If reality is unreasonable, unlawful, totally chaotic there can't be life! You don't have to be Einstein to realise this! "...Perfectly compatible..."? Absolutely not!
Quote: "P.S. I don't know why you keep saying that you want to remove induction. If this is the case then why are you trying to solve the problem of induction."
If you solve the Problem of Induction, you also remove induction. It's the very induction that is the Problem of Induction.
Post subject: Re: Goodman's Paradox - Reducing It Ad Absurdum PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:59 pm
It has to be this way! When you're in the world, there's a host of necessary conditions that make this possible. ...Our bodies don't explode! Our brains don't turn to stone! So on...!
Edit: Now that you insert "...(inductive)...", please, don't take me to defend induction in this post or elsewhere! I think I've shown that induction is not necessary, we just fail to see the specific reasons when we believe in it!
Post subject: Re: Goodman's Paradox - Reducing It Ad Absurdum PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:17 pm
Rortabend writes: "Your belief in consistency and coherence has to be based on an inductive inference."
The belief in consistency and coherence is derived from a single span of time, instance in its extreme. By deriving this from a single span of time, instance, you effectively avoid the problem of induction. People have traditionally, simply not been analysing what an instance with yourself, your mind, in nature means. I believe that when I derive consistency and coherence from following through on thoughts like Descartes does, is also relatively new. You can make a number of assumptions from this instance as I've shown and these necessities make it off with both Goodman's Paradox and Hume's Problem of Induction. It's not my fault people haven't made these thoughts before me.
Post subject: Re: Goodman's Paradox - Reducing It Ad Absurdum PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:34 pm
Dictionary.com, span: 5. the full extent, stretch, or reach of anything: a long span of [time of] memory. My "single span of time" is nothing mystical. It's just like one episode of experience, like a waking day, 2 hours, a session of thinking, 24 hours, and so on. However, I think span isn't 35 years and so, at least not in how I use it.
Descartes is an old man now, 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650, and he's well placed in the history of development of all. I believe in my own solution to Descartes' solution of relating to the external world. Despite his insertion of God as a necessary guarantee for being in the external world, I still find citations mentioning Descartes' Meditations as he makes a very good case for the bottom line, "I think or doubt, therefore I am". Then I turn to other philosophers or do some thinking on my own.
Post subject: Standards of Business Practice PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:42 am
Standards of Business Practice - Facilitation of Corruption Charges to Prevent Greed on Wall Street and so
Should one erect a supervision entity that can punish greed by pointing at taking unreasonable risk? Paul Krugman lashes out at the academic economists because they are no good according to his claims. It is my opinion that people are reasonable rational in the market, but there may exist business cultures that drive the economists crazy and make them go into greed mode. The economists then begin to seek insane short-term profits. Therefore, while one can assume good market mechanisms most of the time, one should perhaps make room for the abnormal bounds in the market assumptions. Should we cool down this possibility, mode of greed by threatening with strict prison sentences and harsh economic fines, both corporate and personal? From what I read of the financial crisis, the institutions of surveillance have been way passive and lenient. My suggestion of both correction of the theoretical foundation and institutional changes here may initiate better times lasting longer and preventing insane ups and downs. I'm just thinking loudly here. I'd like you to discuss this, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=2, in light of this article.
Post subject: Re: Standards of Business Practice PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:52 pm
When I point to risk I'm thinking of the failure by banks to charge extra money for their increased risk-taking in the sub-prime market. If one could have people looking at risk-factors solely, the supervision-entity, it may be able to prevent that kind of craving that we have seen leading up to the financial crisis. There's another factor too. The banks and The Federal Reserve have been showing extremely little cooperated play in playing the sub-prime. If one can hypothesise that the interest rate from the Fed. would have remained low longer while giving signals to the bank industry that they would expect gradual increases in some time, I guess it may have been a whole different story. I think the shift from Greenspan to (the moron, excuse me) Bernanke, who have been setting in too harsh measures to protect the currency, the dollar, has proven disastrous. I, at that time, would have liked to see a drop (inflation) in the value of the dollar. This could regulate, at the time, U.S. industry to export more and making US citizens more careful with the money. It's all over now and I feel the world has been paying for U.S. greed and failure! USA and I are still friends, but I like to never see it, the recession, again!
*I'm guilty of being rude to Bernanke, but the seas have been stormy formerly in discussing this.
Post subject: Re: Standards of Business Practice PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:18 pm
I'm in the belief that there's been failures in the "sub-prime market". Isn't it really a fact that people who have been wanting a house, a place to live, have not had the economic ability to carry the economic burden for very long. The "sub-prime market" has proved riskier than the greed has been able to see. When you invest in, let's say, Microsoft, isn't there actually a "roof" that is a function of the "yield"? I believe that there's a limit to speculation if the object of investment has a limited profitability, ie. every object of investment. If there's a low "yield" to the stockholders, the potential of the stock price is also limited. Am I terribly wrong?
Post subject: Re: Standards of Business Practice PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:38 pm
You come across as some kind of communist, anti-economics. First, the instrument of economy is to value objects, concrete or abstract. If the instrument of economy is very precise then one can put trust in its output. This is always done in the basic cases. I agree that society is building value. It's the activity of people that produces objects of value whether this is the pumping of oil, surveillance of production processes, driving the bus, trading stocks, making watches, performing, making art, educating, researching, inventing, and the lot. Creating value is not exploiting, no, it's doing work, using one's talents (perhaps less visible in the case of the cleaner, but no less, ie. being a nice person etc.) Let me present two cases, Microsoft and Google. Do you say they're not serving the market? Are they disrespectful? Do you feel exploited by them? Let me remind you of comfortable, easy computing for all sorts of issues and the precise searches on the internet also putting marketing at your fingertips and a whole lot more, all in favour of these two. I say virtues of their work make their (financial) success.
"The raison d'etre of markets" is value, valuable objects. The market ensures access for and to these valuable objects, in both the sense of buying and selling. The financial system is supposed to contribute fluidity of economy in the service of value, valuable objects and accountability, responsibility. The notion of "fine-tuning" is about making the system useful and non-disastrous, non-exploitable, ie. Madoff, credit default-swaps.
"The idea of the economy is to make money." Thanks! The value of money is guaranteed by the state by the security of all products and services combined. Money can be made in the sense that the state chooses to "expand" the economy by making a too big state-budget, ie. state spending, and/or through excessive lending to banks, ie. making money too accessible and cheap. The "expansion" of economy usually leads to inflation, ie. money becomes less worthy, this in turn leads to less imports from other currency systems. Money represents an obligation on the state.
S G R writes: "One wishes to buy a house for say £100,000, one acquires a mortgage at say 8% over twenty five years. At the end of twenty five years one has a house that is now worth £150,000 one has made money and everyone is happy but in reality one has paid for the house at least twice probably more and the fifty grand ‘profit’ has nothing to do with how much one has paid."
The loan from the bank to this person enables this person to make an investment in a house. Instead of wasting money renting, this person places a regular amount of money in this person's investment. Usually, this person is far better off in twenty-five years because in the meanwhile inflation, increase in this person's wages has made it cheaper to pay this loan. I see that the inflation also reduces the value of the house, but at this point, this person now has wealth, assets, while in the past this person had nothing!
I believe I've only pointed out the rudimentary and, S G R, your view on economy has been or is twisted to say the least. I hope you find this to be a clarification, although you can probably very well get the same information by reading economy on the internet.
Post subject: Re: Standards of Business Practice PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:59 pm
Heard of accounting? That's it! There are mountains of more stuff, but accounting is a nice example.
You seem to skip so comfortably "I say virtues of their work make their (financial) success."
S G R writes: "No, this is not true – you are talking about reality and society here, the imposition of the financial system upon peoples lives is not a necessity in fact I consider it a very bad thing."
You deny the function of the market? That's really strange. You pick up the groceries? That's a very bad thing?
Quote: "Consider what happens if there is a disaster. If you saw a car crash would you run over and offer to hire out your mobile phone at a rate consistent with the supply and demand of the situation? Would you negotiate the highest price you could for any help you offered?"
I believe there's something called blood-money!
Quote: "Accountability and responsibility for what and to whom? Have you ever worked in sales?"
I believe there are regulations in place for the financial system and you do go to jail for fraud and corruption. "Sales"? That's in the sales-department of some business and is included in the general economy of markets.
Quote: "The system is exploitation – I find it hard to understand how you miss this point. Why do you think there are rich people and poor people?"
The system is the financial system as I've written in the instance just before it. I believe you are stupid if you call the financial system exploitation. No one is supposed to be exploited. All you need to do is to fulfill your role as citizen. It's so simple. Make the most of your talents, please! Build a new Google if you feel like it! Rich people are rich because of their virtues or heritage that is the virtue somewhere down the family tree. The poor are poor because of unfortunate circumstances, like exposure to assholes and what have you. I do support a welfare system!
Quote: "And what did the bank do in return?"
What is the bank supposed to do? I believe banks make reasonable profits and that they serve the market, fx. enable people to make investments and so.
Quote: "And of course house prices always go up!"
Yes! After you have bought yours!
Post subject: Re: Standards of Business Practice PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:39 pm
I'll answer you without fuzz.
I believe we just disagree on the fundamentals of the financial system. I see the whole of economy and financial system as made up of honest, working people. I sense that you think there are more crooks than good people. This thread has been erected to try to meet some of the concerns regarding economy and financial system. Yes, there has been greed and failures and I suggest a contribution to a better future! The problem with Africa and starving people (also in Asia?) is huge. We have no other option than to keep helping them (aid, WFP and money, advice, experts on development, support from our education systems to educate people from there so they get the experts, engineers, medical doctors and so on, fair trade and help and emphasis on striking down on corrupt, exploiting companies operating there and the rest).
I believe we just disagree on the fundamentals of the financial system. I see the whole of economy and financial system as made up of honest, working people. I sense that you think there are more crooks than good people. This thread has been erected to try to meet some of the concerns regarding economy and financial system. Yes, there has been greed and failures and I suggest a contribution to a better future! The problem with Africa and starving people (also in Asia?) is huge. We have no other option than to keep helping them (aid, WFP and money, advice, experts on development, support from our education systems to educate people from there so they get the experts, engineers, medical doctors and so on, fair trade and help and emphasis on striking down on corrupt, exploiting companies operating there and the rest).
(S G R) You write: "Don’t understand this either." I think that in most cases people are rich because of their virtues, they are good in something and they have capitalised on their talents and virtues. I therefore suggest that in the big picture people are wealthy, incredibly wealthy because it's well earnt. Again, people are not scoundrels, quite the opposite (except a few here and there, fx. Gomorrah and such).
You write: "None of this was deemed fraudulent or corrupt and yet this is the system that you describe as “supposed to contribute… …accountability, responsibility.”" I can't prevent failures such as these and I do think that USA deserves their sorry asses when they fail in charging extra money for extra risk and in addition spread this failure out in a system like that. Again, I point to the intention of this thread, to get rid of such failures in the future.
You write: "What possible evidence have you got to support this claim?" It's in the laws of most legal systems. Have you ever seen a political party promoting "exploitation" in support of a "corrupt, financial elite"? Neither have I! If you find corruption, make the complaint with the "Bobbies"!
You write: "...different system than a free market." Certainly! It's in the power of the majority of the people! Use your vote!
You write: "Enable people to make money out of money?" Enable people to secure their money, to act constructively in the market!
Post subject: Re: Super Knowledge PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:37 pm
Perhaps consistency and coherency can count for "superknowledge". Also various axioms from other fields, especially mathematics?
Now, if consistency and coherency are true then also continuity, the flow of time? I'd consider "superknowledge" to be obvious propositions that can't be denied, knowledge (objective). (Our criterium may only be this: plausibility, credibility, but that is off topic, maybe.)
Post subject: Re: Psychoanalysis and brainscans PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:35 pm
Over the article: http://kurier.at/nachrichten/gesundheit/1939094.php. (It appears to be no longer available, but the article deals with "people suffering from depression have been subjected to psychoanalysis and specific changes in their brains have been found", provided by Richard Baron.)
It has been my thoughts for a while that when you can virtually see the thought patterns of patients, perhaps this should guarantee the proper diagnosis of each and everyone of them, the mental health patients. The news you bring up should entrench this matter. We'll see more use of these scans in the future?
It has been my thoughts for a while that when you can virtually see the thought patterns of patients, perhaps this should guarantee the proper diagnosis of each and everyone of them, the mental health patients. The news you bring up should entrench this matter. We'll see more use of these scans in the future?
Post subject: Re: Is it morally-repugnant to violently-rape small children? Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:22 pm
Is it morally repugnant to violently-rape small children? Yes! Yes! Yes! Three times affirmative. Hasn't it been expected?
What do you want? Do you really expect people to come out and defend pedophilia? It's extremely commonplace to reject such atrocity! Actually, I say it's so non-controversial that there's almost no point in asking it. As this is a place for thought and reflection, I hardly believe this thread can be perceived as serious. I also think it's wrong of you to consider homosexuality versus pedophilia.
People are just commonly not that ugly as you may perceive them. (Or maybe the times are changing rapidly and to the far worse. The again, it seems to me that hope always shines thorugh even if one self is not always part of it.)
Post subject: Re: Is it morally-repugnant to violently-rape small children? Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:41 am
Realunoriginal writes: "Why is it morally-repugnant to violently-rape small children?"
Some people deny the existence of ethics and thereby its morals whatsoever, but I can say this. It certainly hurts a given society and the coherence of the people in it if one allows unfounded, monstrous acts. I find it also morally repugnant because I believe in ethics and morals myself, personally. You know the law may be seen as an expression of a collective moral the punishment is quite strict for "violently-rape small children". This punishment may thus be seen as a (scale of) degree of monstrosity (to which one is punished) and this particular punishment goes quite high on that scale.
Post subject: Re: Is it morally-repugnant to violently-rape small children? Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:53 am
One of those points that hasn't made it has been a criticism of you putting homosexuals grouped with child-molesters. The thing is, homosexuals can enable their normal family and community members carry more children so in this sense they contribute positively even in the evolutionary sense. Child-molesters on the other hand, they destroy people, at least, mentally, perhaps also physically. I think you have looked past this!
By this, I haven't by far answered all of your objections.
By this, I haven't by far answered all of your objections.
Post subject: Re: Who among us is fully awake? Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:03 am
I have voted "Fully awake" because I don't think I'll get better than this. Having that said, I can never get enough enlightenment! I live to learn!
Post subject: Re: A new Glue of the Universe? Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:27 pm
First, I must say that I find causation useful. When I hear that there is a cause of something, I also have the notion that there is something that has been effectuated. I know that Cause and Effect belong together. In your system, how am I supposed to determine what is up and what is down of that necessity? I understand you say that brain processes necessitate consciousness downward. What does that mean? Why isn't it upward necessary? Is there a "soul" in there?
To me, Causation gives explanatory force. When they say that HIV is caused by the HIV-virus and not by a bacteria, I like to avoid that virus and that blood. I wonder, doesn't correlation and interaction give your concerns a little room? Is time vital in determining downward versus upward? I get it when you say that the universe is coherent, but I sense it is in picking out features and objects that we get scientific. The universe is just as coherent as before. We split up the chains of processes.
If you invent a new chemical compound, is it downward necessary?
By myself: "The universe is the effect of its cause, the Big Bang."
Post subject: Re: A new Glue of the Universe? Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:40 pm
I say then, night and day is caused by the sun and the revolution of the earth. I assume here we're talking about nights and days on earth.
Post subject: Re: Painted rocks Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:21 pm
kake writes: "If I take a Grey rock and I paint it red, what color is it really? If colors exist, is the paint just red? Or maybe the color Grey is gone until the paint is no longer part of the rock?"
I hope, though, that you are honest. My answer to you is that the rock is red on the surface and grey inside! How is this? Well, if you just crack the rock, you'll see of course that the former surface sides of the rock are still red and the surfaces that have been together are grey. One should also keep in mind that most colours are made up of molecules. Uniform atoms piled together also has colour in varying degrees, just have a look at the properties of the elements in the chart over the various atoms. I believe they range in atom-number 1 through 110. I bet you know them. Some people say the sky is blue, but the fact is that when light enters the atmosphere the light is bended just like when light goes from air into glass. The result of this is that the atmosphere is usually coloured blue. There are more colours in the sky also as you see when the sun dawns or sets in the horizons. Satyr has mentioned that colours are in the head, but I find it has been proven at least that the structure of the substances affects the light no matter what. I'd like to encourage you to check out the physics of colours while you're at it.
Post subject: Re: Reality and Truth Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:52 pm
S G R writes: "How can you ‘know’ that 1+1=2? Could it be in the same way that you ‘know’ Euclidean geometry? Because Euclidean geometry is also based upon a system of logic and yet since Einstein it is recognised that it does not correspond to reality. So what you seem to be saying is that one can ‘know’ something that is not true."
I think this is wrong. Euclidean geometry is recognised to represent reality, but when it comes to relativity, it is insufficient. The Riemann geometry that underpins the work of Einstein is an addition to the Euclid geometry. One may seem to presuppose a too fluid view of reality in that one can't assume logic to be true. I strongly disagree with that view. Logic is reflected in reality everywhere, otherwise the logic would be different. I think Satyr here is making the quite plain case that many have done before, perhaps first the logical empiricists. Apart from the verification, it's fairly sound, I find. As far as "knowledge" exists and as far as "reality" exists, I also think that knowledge builds upon reality, but at times with a certain distance to it.
Post subject: Re: Reality and Truth Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:55 pm
I, myself, is a Coherentist. It's not very original. From my position then, I see reality as something external to the consciousness. I have although begun to hold dear the concept of Life-World to set the difference between perception and reality as firmly as possible.
Post subject: Re: The New World Order Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:58 am
I'm very optimistic about the future of the developed democracies. The only sad thing is that the rest of the world is lagging behind, but China is coming around big time and India with it. If they sort out things in the Middle East and Africa, it should look really good! I think there are many possibilities for entrepreneurship, but I recommend people to pick up a big degree of education. I believe the founders of Google set a stunning example in this regard. I'll almost say that entrepreneurship is identical with education.
Post subject: Re: Stoopid Ig'nerint rednekkks who did't vote fer Obama Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:43 pm
With Obama, I feel intelligence again occupies the Whitehouse! Bless you, US citizens! It may turn out bad, but I say it already, please give this man his second term!
I'm a little afraid the gun-horny Republicans who eagerly fire from the hip.
Post subject: Re: Irrational Economics Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:26 am
Some time ago, from a renowned university or something, people are given a question of whether to have a certain amount of money relatively or a certain amount of money absolutely. The result of choices are that people choose money on the relative basis even if it's an unwise choice. Essentially, people choose to maintain rank among some people (and possibly becoming incredibly aggressive externally) rather than choosing what is best for people in the holistic sense, for the community. I'd say there is something wrong with it. To say that price is unaffected by salaries is plain wrong if it applies to everyone in a given system, say a particular country. After the labour unions and the employer unions have set the new salaries standard for the next year, it doesn't take long before there is a reaction in the market. I think it may be right to choose to earn twice as much as absolutely everyone else. Surely, something must happen inflation wise in such cases. I think it's very rational to seek a labour union if you're engaged with blue collar work. Even white collar labour unions have some guide lines in the interest of their members. The way with unions on both sides of the working situations has proven quite stable and good, I think, with increased safety and better working environment where it applies. I hope this system gets applied everywhere.
Speaking of the economic crisis, there is something insane going on when people fail to get paid for risks when their only goal is exactly this task, as with the risk of sub-prime mortgages. It doesn't get any better when the successor of Alan Greenspan who has been known for allowing interest rates to be set quite low, is Ben Bernanke who figures he's going to be the nice schoolboy and all of a sudden shifts focus to protecting the value of the dollar with a subsequently steep rise in interest rates so that the market which has bet on steady, low rates go BUST! Well done, Bernanke! Now you can really defend the dollar.
However, mostly I find the economic systems very good and contributing to the development of the whole world. Eventually, the planet's population is more or less earning the same (in two hundred years?) and the differences will lie in resources, cultural streaks and creativity of entrepreneurs. The future is good if it is managed properly by alert democracies.
Post subject: Re: Foundations of Philosophy Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:13 am
A couple of my posts:
Source: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/foundations-of-philosophy-33822.html
Source: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/foundations-of-philosophy-33822.html
I writes,
here are my foundational beliefs:
1. I agree with "Induction does not lead to certain (ie infallible) truth".
2. I agree with " Propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief".
3. Experience is the source of all we know.
4. I agree with "The rules of logic, and the truths of mathematics, are the same in all possible worlds".
5. I agree with " The world is rational, coherent and consistent".
6. I agree with "Solipsism is false (ie there is a real world out there)".
7. I believe in extra-natural facts. Facts that have yet to be explained by science.
8. Physicalism has not been proved. It may not be a fact that everything supervenes on the physical, per Standard Model in 2009.
9. In some sense, I'm a dualist, but if we sometime in the future expand the Standard Model of Physics to accommodate every phenomenon in the world, I'm a reductionist.
10. There is objective morality. What you do to the common pool of humanity is what you bear with you to the moment of death. This includes attitudes to humanity, as well.
11. Morality is founded on the good will as explained by I. Kant.
12. Purpose is what you take it to be based on your total impression of the world.
here are my foundational beliefs:
1. I agree with "Induction does not lead to certain (ie infallible) truth".
2. I agree with " Propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief".
3. Experience is the source of all we know.
4. I agree with "The rules of logic, and the truths of mathematics, are the same in all possible worlds".
5. I agree with " The world is rational, coherent and consistent".
6. I agree with "Solipsism is false (ie there is a real world out there)".
7. I believe in extra-natural facts. Facts that have yet to be explained by science.
8. Physicalism has not been proved. It may not be a fact that everything supervenes on the physical, per Standard Model in 2009.
9. In some sense, I'm a dualist, but if we sometime in the future expand the Standard Model of Physics to accommodate every phenomenon in the world, I'm a reductionist.
10. There is objective morality. What you do to the common pool of humanity is what you bear with you to the moment of death. This includes attitudes to humanity, as well.
11. Morality is founded on the good will as explained by I. Kant.
12. Purpose is what you take it to be based on your total impression of the world.
Note: These foundational beliefs of "mine" are not superior to my "Philosophical Positions" from the "Issues...", in fact the reverse is true.
Post subject: Re: Foundations of Philosophy Posted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:15 am
Source: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/foundations-of-philosophy-33822.html
I write: "I write something simple because I'm very unsure about the induction issue. I think there may be a way around it. It is a hugely complex issue, the issue of knowledge and epistemology in general. I don't want to answer it right now.
Yes. I believe that everything can in principle be explained by science and logic.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used "proved". Apart from that, I think the point is made.
You're right, but it's not my point. I want to write that the work of the mind is a kind of experience. We build up a more powerful mind as the years pass and it is this that I write is the experience to point to. Euclid's axioms haven't come about overnight. Nowadays, people are quite old and well-educated before they publish something novel worth the attention. It takes experience. I have also omitted the induction issue, see above.
It is taken, see above.
Alright.
We disagree here. I think one is wrong to point to Kant's Christian background.
Yes. I believe that everything can in principle be explained by science and logic.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used "proved". Apart from that, I think the point is made.
You're right, but it's not my point. I want to write that the work of the mind is a kind of experience. We build up a more powerful mind as the years pass and it is this that I write is the experience to point to. Euclid's axioms haven't come about overnight. Nowadays, people are quite old and well-educated before they publish something novel worth the attention. It takes experience. I have also omitted the induction issue, see above.
It is taken, see above.
Alright.
We disagree here. I think one is wrong to point to Kant's Christian background.
Post subject: Re: Searle's Chinese Room Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:49 am
To my knowledge, Searle's Chinese Room exposes the difference with a syntactic programming and a semantic programming, if such a thing can exist. Only people as we know are capable of semantic reasoning.
It is funny, though, that if you turn Searle's argument on its head, it can be a nice qualia argument in so far as the person in the room learning Chinese in this occasion, can show the genuine character of a human distinctly apart from a computer.
Post subject: Re: infinity, time, everything etc Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:10 am
You can't split a cake infinitely many times because it has a finite number of atoms in it, but I take your point when it comes to the abstract numbers.
Yet, I find that we put the infinite to the issues that are relevantly infinite to us. If the universe is expanding forever, it is infinite to us. If we number reality the number 1 because we seemingly live in one reality, I think it gives little meaning to the factors we truly, no matter what, view as infinite as the nature of universe or whatever else we think about.
Post subject: Re: Internal and External Worlds. Proof? Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:22 pm
When it comes to the idea of tabula rasa, I guess it relates more to the question of apriori knowledge. The tabula rasa idea defeats the idea that we are born with some innate knowledge of God, typically.
Hilary Putnam has also written some on the impossibility of a God's eye view and internal worlds. I'm trying to figure out if my angle to the problem of justifying the external world, internal worlds or worlds altogether is an original one.
I have been reading a post on the metaphysics and the idea comes to me like a lightning from a clear blue sky. Initially, I'm not very keen on the metaphysics. In some sense, it's like religion. You can discuss it until you're blue in the face. So there I am, with these few 4 sentences and wondering if it is anything at all. I'm still interested in the internal, external worlds stuff.
Post subject: The Vatican and Science Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:43 pm
There is a part of the Vatican that is involved with science. It is http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/index.htm. I understand that Galileo hasn't been tortured for heretics as such but for disturbing common people of our place in the universe. Maybe my recollection isn't serving me right, but I state it nevertheless.
Post subject: Religion and Mental Delusion PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:58 pm
There is an important difference between believers and delusional, crazy and psychotic people. The latter people are usually a hazard both to themselves and others. Believers, on the other hand, have built this great civilization, by and large, that we now live in. I agree some can use a corrective in their belief-system, but I believe they are not so many. I, for one, as a believer (analytical deist) believe in extra-scientific truths that is, I make several leaps of faith. It should be fairly obvious that not a single being on earth knows what nature fully is or consists of. To make the assumption that you should tell people what to believe beyond science is stupidity. Post subject: Religion and Mental Delusion PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:32 pm The_Fool writes: "What's the difference between a person who calls themselves the righteous chosen of god under heaven for which they have no evidence for and someone who believes they are Napoleon Bonaparte in the present who believes they are living in 18th century?" "[R]ighteous chosen of god under heaven" can very well represent a tautology and as such doesn't necessarily mean a thing. Now, this "someone" is clearly out of one's mind, a crazy person, who denies every fact face up! I think the 2 examples are not comparable as they may have way different consequences. I also think that the person last mentioned is likely to live the most difficult life. Clearly, when most of the planet's population have some religious faith, the persecution carried out is also the making of those very people. When you mention persecution, I can mention Joseph Stalin of Soviet Union, a far more recent example of that. When I mention building the civilization, I mean that religious people have been very good in making a constructive future and growing the world population, a characteristic of general sanity. Who doesn't say that Vespasian hasn't believed in the Roman gods? Quote: "Deism like so many new pseudo religions unlike traditional ones still believe in intelligent design without evidence." I believe there are several ID-theories. It is correct, of course, that we believe there is some kind of God(-phenomena, -function, -entity) behind it all. "God" may be a whole lot, obscure at that. You, yourself, hold a very recent position, Atheism, I guess, that if we go back a hundred years ago, that kind of position is largely non-existent. Quote: "Perhaps, but is it any more stupid than pronouncing that there is a intelligent design to the cosmos or a god existing out there?( Out, where?)" I say "yes, it is", because I believe one is bound to make extra-scientific assumptions. I bet you also hold views that are not entirely scientific about the birth of, say, the universe and phenomena of life. By the way, "out there" may be meant in various ways. I find that believers have faith in an omnipresent God, not "out there" as such.
Post subject: Praiseworthy Paedo's PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:55 pm
Paedophilia IS a mental disease, a compulsion toward children, is it not?
and
A thought not acted upon is not in the sphere of reality.
and
A thought not acted upon is not in the sphere of reality.
Post subject: How are sci[e]ntific theories produced? PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:42 pm
You can check out the two outstanding authorities in Philosophy of Science, Carl Hempel (confirmation) and Karl Popper (falsification), and you may want to keep an eye on epistemology for the formation of theories. Philosophy of Science is more about the life of theories, how they compare, and their limitations to metaphysics and religion. I can recommend Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues, by Martin Curd and J. A. Cover with the ISBN 978-0-393-97175-0. It contains a number of original contributions, papers, on the central issues. The making of science can be seen as a big evolution of thinking, but also the development of technology to help it along. All of this has taken a few thousand years as you well know. Have fun with the philosophy! I want to include a quote from the book by Karl Popper: "From a new idea, put up tentatively, and not yet justified in any way - an anticipation, a hypothesis, a theoretical system, or what you will - conclusions are drawn by means of logical deduction. These conclusions are then compared with one another and with other relevant statements, so as to find what logical relations (such as equivalence, derivability, compatibility, or incompatibility) exist between them."
Post subject: How are sci[e]ntific theories produced? PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:39 pm
How is your theory different from HDM? To me, half or more of the scientific enterprise is about building a working technological scaffolding to provide the looking glass for where the data comes from. And after you begin to gather data you do the scrutiny for getting the theory from the hunches you have had in the very beginning, when you begin to design the apparatus to use in the investigation. When you finally get there, you may have used decades already. It is obvious that discovery of science goes hand in hand with technological development. Take the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) of CERN! It is just finished and yet one doesn't know what it will bring or if the findings will show anything significant. Besides this, you may build a psychology of how scientific discoveries happen, but I'm not certain whether it is the way to further science. Thank you, anyway. Also, what are your views toward Operationalism, Instrumentalism, and Conventionalism?
Post subject: How are sci[e]ntific theories produced? PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:55 pm
I have inserted the abbreviation, HDM, in a past post. Here is the explanation as given by Encyclopædia Britannica, http://search.eb.com/.
Quote:
"Hypothetico-Deductive Method - Procedure for the construction of a scientific theory that will account for results obtained through direct observation and experimentation and that will, through inference, predict further effects that can then be verified or disproved by empirical evidence derived from other experiments.
Developed by Sir Isaac Newton during the late 17th century (but named at a later date by philosophers of science), the hypothetico-deductive method assumes that properly formed theories arise as generalizations from observable data that they are intended to explain. These hypotheses, however, cannot be conclusively established until the consequences that logically follow from them are verified through additional observations and experiments. In conformity with René Descartes' rationalism, the hypothetico-deductive method treats theory as a deductive system in which particular empirical phenomena are explained by relating them back to general principles and definitions. The method, however, abandons the Cartesian claim that those principles and definitions are self-evident and valid; it assumes that their validity is determined only by the exact light their consequences throw on previously unexplained phenomena or on actual scientific problems."
Quote:
"Hypothetico-Deductive Method - Procedure for the construction of a scientific theory that will account for results obtained through direct observation and experimentation and that will, through inference, predict further effects that can then be verified or disproved by empirical evidence derived from other experiments.
Developed by Sir Isaac Newton during the late 17th century (but named at a later date by philosophers of science), the hypothetico-deductive method assumes that properly formed theories arise as generalizations from observable data that they are intended to explain. These hypotheses, however, cannot be conclusively established until the consequences that logically follow from them are verified through additional observations and experiments. In conformity with René Descartes' rationalism, the hypothetico-deductive method treats theory as a deductive system in which particular empirical phenomena are explained by relating them back to general principles and definitions. The method, however, abandons the Cartesian claim that those principles and definitions are self-evident and valid; it assumes that their validity is determined only by the exact light their consequences throw on previously unexplained phenomena or on actual scientific problems."
Here is also a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico_deductive_model.
Post subject: How are sci[e]ntific theories produced? PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:36 pm
It has never been shown what these extreme circumstances may be so it is a pure speculation or let's say sci-fi of the 50's to say that they are. It's not comparable to refer to the Riemannian modification of Euclidian geometry or non-Euclidian geometry as it's called. Two Dogmas of Empiricism is actually published in 1951 with a revised edition in 1961. The article is here: http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html.
Richard Baron:
"Another view is given by Otto Neurath in his Antispengler, with his image of sailors repairing a ship at sea."
"Another view is given by Otto Neurath in his Antispengler, with his image of sailors repairing a ship at sea."
The picture by Neurath is used as a metaphor for the ongoing enterprise of science. We are obviously in the world, but we need to rebuild our understanding of the world. Otto Neurath has been an early member of the Vienna Circle also known as the logical positivists.
You may read more about it in Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century - Four Central Themes by Donald Gillies, ISBN 0-631-18358-2.
Post subject: Bicameralism and Consciousness PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:49 pm
Psychonaut writes: "What is required for consciousness?"
I say it is the capacity to create ideas, preferably new ones.
I think Bicameralism is a kind of emergentism just worded in scientific way. There may be some faults within the Bic. One matter I think is not so good, is the shift from non-conscious to conscious and this is an anomaly within that specific idea. Rather, I find that if some entity is conscious it has been conscious on some level the whole time, ever creating new ways out of one's situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment