Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 15

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 7:33 AM: Can Socratic method break down its own principle?

I broadly agree with ciceronianus. The Socratic method is certainly not a "gold standard" with me. I haven't read a single dialogue of Socrates where there is any result other than negative. Now, "is it possible to use the Socratic method to attack its own premise?" This is tricky! I can't find anything that takes down the method, but there is always a chance for innovation of a good description. So to answer the question straight in an innovative, sound manner may be the best way out of the question asked.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 6:26 AM: A good comprehensive book in Metaphysics

I'm looking for something between the introduction (on university level, of course) and the more advanced courses. It's not enough with giving 20 pages on time, 20 pages on causation, 20 pages on substance and so on.
I think I'll go for: Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings (Routledge Contemporary Readings in Philosophy) (Paperback), 544 pages, 2001, edited Michael Loux. I have gotten this urge to read Rudolf Carnap, but the article that is cited in the Forums is not in it. I'll get it somewhere else.
Hurray! Luckily it turns out that there is Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings (Routledge Contemporary Readings in Philosophy) (Paperback), 2. ed., 664 pages, 2008, edited Michael Loux. It is now in the box!

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 6:14 AM: The Slingshot

xzJoel wrote: 2) Why is any proof required to understand that our language bears no fundamental relationship to its object such that a sentence has no truth value of its own? In other words, doesn't the idea "x corresponds to the fact that p" immediately lend itself to the criticism that you can't know that x has any correspondence to p? Language has evolved with people in relation to their perception of reality for the most parts. There may be innovations that don't reflect reality in any way. As the language has become extensive, there may be bits and parts there implied by it that have remained overlooked that may contribute to our understanding of nature. Mostly, I hold that language is language and that there is nothing in it that will solve any problem outside of language itself. Even then, it remains a large sheet of a grid of calculations of possibilities from the nature we want to describe in the first place. I have said there may be something, some relations that are overlooked.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 5:53 AM: Universe=God

When one states that God is the universe, one is implying that the universe has a quality outside the natural sciences. Heck, one is even saying that the universe has an eternity to it that gives meaning in various ways. The relationship indicated is always outside the sciences and though one may include the sciences as qualities for one's religion, the opposite is not true. In a religious context, "God is the universe" is always significant. I think the sentence also says that God is not transcendent which is a considerable claim.

Posted Apr 29, 2009 - 5:34 AM: Performative Utterances and Scientific Papers

There is no speech-act in a scientific paper. Just in case you say there is, this speech-act has no context outside the scientific paper. Therefore, there really is no impact of Austin in the scientific paper that yield any worth to Austin's theory and the semantics is thereby seized wholly, again, by the classical theory of meaning, nullifying Austin. Is this nothing? I guess some people like to protest to what I'm saying and I'm interested in exactly what this is. Can I also return the question? Why is there no problem? Have I missed something that makes me think I have a point?

Posted Apr 28, 2009 - 6:14 PM: Phenomenology vs. Structuralism

This is only speculation. Maybe it suggests something like the approach given by two philosophies. I believe structuralism is built on an empirical foundation and is objective in viewing a problem. This objectivity has a tension to the phenomenological approach that views its object in wider perspective that assumes uncertainty in its investigation of what it tries to describe. Uhh.... is this any good?

Posted Apr 28, 2009 - 3:25 PM: Performative Utterances and Scientific Papers

In Austin's own words from the Performative Utterances, p. 144-145 in The Philosophy of Language, Martinich, 5.ed: What we need besides the old doctrine about meanings is a new doctrine about all the possible forces of utterances, towards the discovery of which our proposed list of explicit performative verbs would be a very great help; and then, going on from there, an investigation of the various terms of appraisal that we use in discussing speech-acts of this, that, or the other precise kind - orders, warnings, and the like. Really, it may be necessary to read the whole thing to get it, but there you have some of it. Have you tried Wikipedia or Google?

Posted Apr 28, 2009 - 2:26 PM: Language is universal?

patito de hule wrote: "Do we have reason to believe that we would ever be able to communicate with them (in our language or theirs) even if we can vocally reproduce their sounds and they can reproduce ours." Given that it seems there is an inherent capacity to form languages to cope more efficiently in the environment, it should not pose a bigger problem to apply such a universal capacity in exchange of languages or the formation of a new, common one. We should include sign-languages in this regard. So, it may boil down to pointing limbs and drawing in the sand.

Posted Apr 28, 2009 - 1:38 PM: Performative Utterances and Scientific Papers

It seems to me that while the power of Frege's On Sense and Nominatum and Grice's Meaning is well retained in the context of scientific papers, this is not the case with the argument of J. L. Austin when he launches the attack on classical meaning theory by Performative Utterances. The power of pragmatics just dwindle to virtually nothing if you are to consider it in relation to scientific papers. Scientific papers are usually exhaustive in all sorts of manners and I find this is particular true in contexts, ie. outside factors that may play a role in the experiment. This is just a first thought and I'm wondering what you think? If one is scientific in one's approach to daily communication, is it possible to clear most misunderstandings?

Posted Apr 28, 2009 - 1:57 AM: The arbitrary nature of the Good

I'd say you're very much on it. I think there is no significance with God before the creation and with the creation. God just stays the same, God has lied down and lies there. It's a dormant entity. It has no problems to solve because everything is taken care of by the various functions of nature. We are living a journey in God's body, so to speak. On some level, we'll return to God. Maybe God and Heaven are the same? There is no difference in God's being and Heaven. Alright!

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 11:14 PM: Thinking implies existence

Well, it turns out we disagree deeply here, I think. Good luck with your theory! I don't know if there is any use for having me posting anymore in this thread. If I do, I'll promise I'll stick to cognition.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 8:41 PM: Scientific vs Philosophical Methods

Alright, et cetera, formally I realise you are correct and you point out one essential problem in the Philosophy of Science which is good. I think Donald Gillies speaks about parsimony. I don't know if you're familiar with him. Let me try with this: all of a sudden I also get a "metaphysical" hunch. I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is involved in the making of DNA. We then have: T1) DNA -> O T2) DNA & God -> O (your God) T3) DNA & FSM -> O (my God) By agreement to further research in the name of science and avoid quarrelling and possibly also the indecision-problem, we, the both of us, go with only T1. You can't find FSM and I can't find God. I think this may pose a solution to the problem you draw which is really a classic. The literature mentions other solutions. I look forward to your reply.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 3:19 PM: Thinking implies existence

So you actually contend the following: the cause is "self" and its effect is "thinking". In your words, the thinking is the self. I'd say that is bold, indeed. Let me think some more! However, nice going! Also, can't you write a longer article so that your point is more obvious, perhaps explicating words here and there.
jorndoe wrote: So, by "this existence" you mean "thoughts", no? No, I don't. By "this existence", I mean whatever it is that generates the mind and the consciousness. I don't really have to explain exactly what I mean since the effect is the human being even in the physicalistic sense. To be honest, I connect this "lowest" reality to God through the soul, directly, but I don't think it's the issue here. You may be able to generate a more complete picture from what I've written in the other threads.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 3:04 PM: Intelligent Design

Sometimes, I.D. sounds like bad emergentism. I mean I.D. is flawed. Although you can make the theory beautiful in your mind, the actual theory is badly camouflaged religion. Get it out of schools, USA! I have become outraged by the notion of I.D. since I have investigated it some time ago. "Rubbish" is the only word I have for it. I may commend Christians for leaving the Creationism far behind and replacing it with I.D., but there is still some realisation to take effect. Rather orthodox people clinging to insane ideas is the expression of I.D. Final!

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 2:06 PM: About Time, Motion and Mind

Truden wrote: "Why would be nec[e]ss[a]ry another event to occur?" It seems to be that once an event comes into existence another event immediately follows, like the persistence of the object of this event or the extinguishment of the object of this event. I don't think it's possible for something to come into existence and go out of existence at the same time. Therefore, I think it follows that there are at least two events besides the empty space.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 1:19 PM: Thinking implies existence

"Thinking implies existence, but what existence?" I'd say it implies this existence. How can it be otherwise? An anchor-point is necessary for your thinking. The thinking of thinking of thinking has a certain limit to it. What are the answers supposed to be? I hope you write some more about the issue you are concerned with. Even if you're dreaming of an existence, it's nothing more than a function of the existence from which you are thinking.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 9:52 AM: Irrational Economics

ssu wrote: Think how difficult it is to mathematically model something the Swstephe is trying to say. Exactly, it ruins the whole economics and I think it's not the case. People are able to handle the market quite well, but when the details kick in, only the experts survive.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 8:32 AM: Capitalism

Capitalism combined with restraints and regulation is what best enables people in choosing life and degree of activity. I opt for strong government including police that also cares for those who fail to fulfil life's obligations, ie. social benefits-programs. There is an abyss in USA today, I sense, in that some people are chained to "stupid" work without being compensated enough for it. I hope this changes so that respect completely permeates every society. I think the future consists in capitalism that merges with socialism toward the centrist position. The fringe is, of course, Russia and China as they are a little chaotic, but they will come around. It's funny to observe how politicians always close in on the middle of political discussion as the election day nears. Anarchy is not an option! It fails to give the people in such a system qualities in life. It's usually both corrupt and chaotic, only upheld by pockets of people who agree on projects and duties.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 7:03 AM: About Time, Motion and Mind

I'm just wondering: if you have one event, doesn't it include that at least one more event will occur? Another issue is the perceiving consciousness. If you have consciousness around, I think there have already been series of events already occurring and thus, yes, something is given.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 6:18 AM: Truth must be a constant.

I strongly agree with Yahadreas! Everything we put into existence or have the potential to put into existence is already given by nature.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 6:03 AM: Irrational Economics

Maybe the picture blurs when people are required to be mathematically perfectly rational, but otherwise, I think, most people handle a bad offer and a good offer sufficiently well to the degree that economics is largely useful. All in all, I don't think it's so bad that people trade in emotions ie. wear a certain brand to feel better. Revolutions in science and creativity will always have the potential to make an earthquake in the economical landscape. It doesn't mean we should rule out economics. P.S. More economics issues in the forums, ehh, fora, please!

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 5:44 AM: Scientific vs Philosophical Methods

What is this "tertiary" structure? I don't want religion mixed in here so the "God designed it that way" is really very unnecessary. What is "the former theory" of the DNA? You have to explain ""inert" auxiliary assumptions". If you can't make an impact by a certain assertion, is it not, then, useless? That is, our assertion should at least envision us a possible truth. Science, of course, is in the absolute demand of more tangible results or hypotheses or theories. About the philosophical method: I think philosophy today is all in the mind. Maybe you can draw on the results of sciences to make indications in your description or question, however, the speculation is a central theme and innovations of new angles and ideas are crucial toward the material of philosophy. You may be able to invent new areas in philosophy, but I find that incredibly hard. I'm satisfied with the classical questions for now. One project I have been thinking about, is to make an economic index in philosophy of science where you evaluate the impact of new scientific findings and express it in economic terms. In this way you may find the answer to your precision of evaluation which may not be bad. While scientists spend a lot of time designing experiments and working with engineers in this regard, philosophers innovate and evaluate the pure ideas that may lead to actual testing or normative standards. So words, words, words, that is all there is to philosophy.

Posted Apr 27, 2009 - 5:16 AM: The arbitrary nature of the Good

I have a suggestion of something: God is creating the best possible world. In creating the best possible world, God chooses the best possible process, namely the evolution. In showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to the instance of nothing. The beliefs that lack in quality make people fail. A bad quality is a quality that lacks in greater quality. The bad quality is therefore marked with something that is missing, it is marked with a degree of nothing. Evil is therefore of instance of nothing. So there it is, the world of something and nothing. God is represented with full and all quality. Perfection in this is open to all but it is of course difficult. In making the small great God is going full circle hence God’s own nature and this constitutes the perfect drama of full quality. It doesn’t necessarily end there. It can continue into more circles of even new dramas of the full scale of smaller quality processes into greater quality processes and back again to the full quality of God. The conclusion of this is naturally that we are a part of a perfect drama between the gravities of nothing and all on the path back to God from where we originated.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 6:04 PM: The Slingshot

Even though I'm a coherentist in epistemology, I think this argument is largely unreasonable. A Big Fact necessarily "gravitates" inward to itself suggesting "retraction", but I find it plausible that descriptions "gravitate" outwards, expand, and thus making it impossible for the Big Fact to accommodate it all in its diversity. May this be something? I'm unsure if I answer it correctly.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 5:50 PM: What is the point of the pope?

I dispute that the Pope is powerful to me. Firstly, he is shrouded in ancientry and he is speaking like the world is not changing. Secondly, he has strict boundaries and rituals for almost everything he does so that it incapacitates him. Perhaps the church is rich, but I bet the money isn't spent on cocaine and whores. What about the Pope himself? Being elected Pope at 78 surely requires you to be passionate about the teachings. I'm surely not in envy! Somehow, I think some people need to take care of the institution and make it consistent. They may be seen as a kind of diverse counselors. I also think some people need to develop the religious thought, yet that may not bring them very far. If churches haven't been erected, maybe we still would live in paganism and maybe in turn, we would have failed to develop into the modern world. I don't know. To hell with Christianity, it's just a profanity today! I sense the rise of "religious scientism" in its place.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 5:14 PM: Society, Tool For Leveraging Value.

Is this negative? Society needs to have rules in place to make everything go smoother. Besides, society is not some alien. It's given the power by the people and we are the people. I think many people put too much in the fact that some people are elected to rule for us. I see it as efficient and I find no good alternative.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 4:56 PM: Scientific vs Philosophical Methods

The Modus Tollens. Alright. It's the logic tool. I believe this is already assumed in HDM and the rest. The part on underdetermination is true, but there is virtually no effort to try to make UD a significant argument. Take the double helix DNA threads. Is there a competitor? I believe this is mentioned by Philip Kitcher in Science, Truth, and Democracy.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 9:26 AM: Irrational Economics

I sense a rather dark view on the possibility of rational people here, but so be it. Don't you think that the activity of people doing science points in a different direction? I have great hopes of science, perhaps also the science of economy.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 9:16 AM: Is Knowing something exist important?

AO2012 wrote: "Why are they not? Are men supernatural, unnatural? Are we not living, nor a part of nature?" We don't have intuitive notions of the fundamentals of nature like the periodic system or the standard model and it is possible to perceive this, the nature, external to us. We are not embedded into the very nature. I can't explain why that is. Maybe you can invent a new religion? Maybe you will find Maurice Merleau-Ponty useful in your philosophical journey? He mentions something similar to you. Again, nature is outside of us. What do you mean by "incomplete memory"? Are you thinking of Plato's Meno dialogue? I'm not going to try to explain the impossible.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 8:52 AM: Truth must be a constant.

ragus wrote: "If the cat may be on the mat or may not be on the mat then is the statement "the cat may be on the mat or may not be on the mat" true?" I'd say that is logically true.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 7:09 AM: The arbitrary nature of the Good

I'm sorry if I interrupt this thread. I want to add a comment. I think it's impossible for God to have any values. The God-phenomenon entertains itself in a perfect way. I want to say that there are considerable problems regarding description and thus existence of God unless only perfect principles play in. What do you say regarding perfection?

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 6:52 AM: The nature of proof

Outside logic, let me suggest that you look at Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Okay, but the falsifiability of hypotheses is surely an important part of the experimental part of the scientific method, and a falsified thesis is of very little scientific value. Neither am I, but there are probably typical methods and commonly prescribed methods.
I like this question. As above, I don't know if we can define a strict philosophical method, but I do believe there are certain general methods. One might be seen as directly parallel to the version of the scientific method you give: 1. Define the question. 2. Gather information and resources (do a literature search). 3. Form a plausible and defensible hypothesis. 4. Design arguments and thought experiments to defend the hypothesis. 5. Analyze the arguments and draw conclusions – has the hypothesis been demonstrated, or at least defended against possible objections? 6. Optionally, go back to step 3. 7. Publish results and conclusions. 8. Reformulate in light of responses (frequently done by other philosophers). While the above method has the virtue of being parallel to the given version of the scientific method, it does not satisfy me. I can't say that I've spent a great deal of time formulating a superior philosophical method, but as a first attempt I would perhaps suggest the following variation: 1. Pose a question. 2. Refine the question into something explainable and conceivably answerable. 3. Gather information and resources (do a literature search). 4. Consider the logical space (that is, the space of possible answers). 5. Examine arguments for and against the various possible answers. 6. Design arguments and thought experiments for and against the various possible answers. 7. Analyze the results of these arguments: Which possible answers have been shown to be untenable? What do the various answers entail, or what are they entailed by? How does this affect the reasonableness of any given possible answer? 8. Form an opinion. 9. Publish results and conclusions. 10. Reformulate or abandon as necessary in light of responses. One of the key differences between the first and second philosophical methods is when one forms an opinion. It is my own belief that far too many people have opinions first and look into philosophical justifications for them afterward, rather than examining the whole of a logical space and following the arguments where they go. No doubt I succumb to this temptation myself from time to time. Hopefully, a philosophical method more like the above would help mitigate this problem. That said, I'm sure the method I suggest could deal with some refining of its own. And maybe you can add this:
Aetixintro writes:
The instance of where scientific and philosophical methods align is that of Naturalism. Otherwise, I'm with the list that has been made by Postmodern Beatnik in his post of 01/19/09 - 07:51 PM. I'd like to add to point 1 the making of invention of fitting descriptions and what else like that of fallibilism, locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary, performative, transcendence. I think you can get far by inventing an appropriate perfect description in one of the philosophical fields that may set the course for others to follow.
Is this totally off?

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 6:01 AM: Irrational Economics

Has Ben Bernanke been irrational? I think Bernanke has been "not so bright" [formerly "stupid"] in the past, but he may have been learning after that. I hope the economy gets the best in the end. Edit: Is there anyone who knows where to access a historical overview of the interest rates of the Fed? I believe I've tried the Fed itself, but there is no way in that jungle.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 5:42 AM: Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

There are people who tell stories of out-of-body experiences and intimacies to God and other from such dangerous situations and to simply reject their stories may not be a wise way to conduct one's life. I remain open-minded to nature's remaining mysteries. I hope there may be decisive accounts in the future. Make the most of your experience!

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 5:29 AM: Is Knowing something exist important?

"Is Knowing something exist important?" I'd say it's obvious that something exists and thus already given. It may be important in the sense that your life in your life-world depend on it. Since your life-world and nature are not the same, the problem you describe with Joe also applies to your own body. Language is the tool for expressing thoughts and communicating and you apply it to your life-world and trying to make it as exhaustive as possible in the best way possible and that is what there is to it.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 4:32 AM: What is time?

From Same thing. Aetixintro wrote: Time is the "organic" nature of succession of events twining as it unfolds. P.S. I haven't read the whole thread. I think animals have a sense of time. They seem to prepare for the night, think of feeding offspring in time, coordinate time for fleeing and hunt and so on.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 4:23 AM: What is time?

Time is the "organic" nature of succession of events twining as it unfolds. P.S. I haven't read the whole thread.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 3:10 AM: Irrational Economics

I consider economics the way this thread goes or perhaps not totally the same. The question in experiment #2 is given to a limited set of business people if I'm not wrong. 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 goes 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.

Posted Apr 26, 2009 - 2:27 AM: Why Act Morally?

morgenrote, why can't this person with the power or the illusion of power in one's eyes that is in the interest of this person be Hitler or another lunatic? I see nothing from what you write that determines your actions toward other people.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 8:41 PM: Truth must be a constant.

Banno wrote: "So it can't be true that the cat is on the mat, because he might get off it?" That the cat may be on the mat is certainly true. To say that you should include propositions of every object in all perspectives, micro and macro, the cat and the cat's quarks, is to demand too much. I think it's sufficient to describe the possibilities as included natural laws, such that if a living thing isn't physically prevented to lie down somewhere, it does. I see where you're coming from and I understand. I emphasise in this regard that the physical conditions with the energy and matter in it, doesn't change, therefore I think that the truth about all possible instances in the universe stays the same. This is not a big deal to me, but I think it's fun to consider it this way.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 8:01 PM: Truth must be a constant.

I agree with AO2012 that truth must be a constant. If we consider our universe, there are only that many propositions about. As the universe turns out to be coherent as in our world the phenomena are equally represented everywhere. F.x. the speed of light is the same everywhere given the factors and this pattern is repeated with all substances, the laws of natural sciences and so on. Nothing changes outside the boundaries of natural sciences. I believe we have yet to see any changes to truth. Regarding the Goodman's paradox, it is really a misnomer as time proves an "organic" whole with the other dimensions. "So does this define light as truth?" I don't think it's necessary to bother with "ultimate truth" issues apart from the description of light. If the description proves spot on, is confirmed, truth follows. Science forever!

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 6:48 PM: Why Act Morally?

morgenrote wrote: Just because a thing is commonly believed hardly makes it right. People have written a great deal about religion, too - should we accept it on that basis? I don't suggest it becomes right if it is commonly believed. If we people write a lot about a given subject I think it indicates the this subject occupies their minds. In the case of terms like honesty, integrity, social viability and bodily and intellectual sensitivities, I think most consider them as beneficial traits, not various ills. morgenrote wrote: The fact that a thing is troubling is hardly any argument against it, either. This is true, but how likely is it to ever find such people? I think such a person is indeed having strange quirks of psyche. If I ask you, is it possible to be fully amoral? Don't you have any consistent moral sentiments toward some people? I doubt the existence of totally amoral people. If I can't point to social disadvantages because of immorality, I give up arguing for moral behaviour. I don't want to refer to religious systems because they hinge on metaphysics and I think I certainly lose the argument automatically to start with if I do so. I don't have enough knowledge to base an argument like this on psychological grounds. You, meaning anyone, is by definition at a loss of integrity in case of immorality like vile lying, but this is falling short, I think. I, personally, will continue to be a moral person as I'm strongly inclined by sentiment to be moral. I'm not calling names. "You" in this instance is a hypothetical person. Very well, morgenrote, there you go. I'll see if something of significance comes up in relation to morality. If then, perhaps we can argue over this again. I'll just add a note here. To me, it seems that the developed world has in place systems of morality in the expression of laws and I have yet to hear established people publicly propagate gross immorality like assaults and rapes, bank robbery, murder, arson and the like. I also find the moral sentiment quite common. Grossly immoral people are usually looked down on in my circles.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 2:59 PM: Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

I haven't written "primoidal", but besides, I don't know the answer to that question. There may be a kind of undetectable substance around that may in turn constitute God or whatever thereof. If I explicate the right way in a thought-experiment it may turn out there is tangibility of the existence of God thus, indirectly, I believe I'm touching the discussion. Thanks for the quick reply.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 2:41 PM: Scientific vs Philosophical Methods

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

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 2:24 PM: How do we measure the 'greatness' of philosophers?

I think great points may well include "they are both plausible and innovative for their time".
Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 2:11 PM: 180 Proof wrote: "Aetixintro wrote: "Can I ask if it is really necessary that God is transcendent?" Is a non-transcendent god "god" in either a religious and/or theistic sense? Examples would be helpful." I can imagine, somewhere in the future, that we can get to experience some kind of entity-matter and that it therefore is not transcendent, yet at the same time this entity-matter may be more primordial than the singularity or the Big Bang or whatever is behind there. I can also imagine that there is no further need to go beyond the God entity-matter because no matter how it behaves there is not another more ultimate explanation than this. This may be rubbish to some people, but I find it important to point out possibilities, at least for myself while giving others a chance to follow.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 1:52 PM: Can I call myself a philosopher?

Some working titles are "protected", ie. given legal recognition. You can't call yourself something unless you have completed a certain education. I think this goes for: Engineer - finished 3 yrs. technical college education or the equivalent university ed. Usually works as an engineer. Medical doctor - finished 5 yrs. university profession-education. Lawyer - finished 5 yrs. university profession-education. Psychologist - finished 5 yrs. university profession-education. others Then: Bachelor degree in philosophy - Answer: I have completed minor degree in philosophy. Masters degree in philosophy - Answer: I have a degree in philosophy. You also work as an assistant in college or university. Answer: I am a philosopher. Doctorate degree in philosophy - Answer: I am educated a philosopher in which I am also a doctor. Works in college or university, teaches and the rest. Answer: I am educated a philosopher and I am a philosopher, actually I am a professor of philosophy. I think the word "philosopher" has some of the same status as the word "therapist". There is really no formal qualification for calling yourself this. It is already said that "philosopher" is very different from f.x. "lawyer". This is, however, of no importance.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 9:26 AM: "Knowing" and Attempting The Impossible.

We know that some issues are possible just as we know that some issues are impossible. We don't know of the possible and impossible in the entirety. We don't know the complete framework of nature. Discoveries may still cause revolutions.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 7:18 AM: Is intelligence a bad thing?

Your argument is extremely wide, yoomzoom. I don't know if it's possible to escape your argument, especially if you include survival of human kind. As for survival, I agree that we should optimise for it so it may be that we agree completely after all. I'm afraid I've interpreted you too narrowly. I've been thinking you imply that we breed like nuts, have constant warfare over resources and act primarily on base instincts. My apologies to you, yoomzoom. By the way, I have forgotten to define good and bad in this instance. Good is everything that makes the human kind to survive. Bad is what is detrimental to the survival, preferably collective. If people suicide, I think they view their remaining life in despair and pains and less of the possibility to a happy, successful life so that it may be the best option for them. I think I may align with this thread like nothing else.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 5:58 AM: How do we measure the 'greatness' of philosophers?

I think it helps to be right in philosophy and thus the philosophers who have made the greatest points, are the greatest philosophers. I can't help thinking of Karl Popper as one of the greatest. Kant has surely made some excellent craftsmanship of philosophy. I also think Descartes is of some importance and I have Maurice Merleau-Ponty as a favourite. Although the logical empiricists can be seen as wrong because of verificationism, I'm in deep sympathy with Rudolf Carnap. Can I add a question? Which contemporary philosopher do you think highly of? I have troubles getting an overview of important contemporary philosophers. I can mention John Searle, but for some reason I don't like him very much. I think he has too much emphasis on linguistics.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 4:21 AM: Why Act Morally?

Many people have been writing considerable volumes from the inspiration of terms like honesty, integrity, social viability and bodily and intellectual sensitivities. I therefore think you are wrong. Do you think of all ethical arguments as circular and pointless? I'm just wondering. Somehow, I get the sense that you don't believe in ethics for some reason. What is this reason? Do you treat your friends well one day and bad the next? How do you think others view you as a consequence of your amoral life? If you argue for amoral systems, I take it that you are amoral yourself. Don't you have sympathies for people in difficult situations? I find it very troubling that one should be able to live without any moral compass.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 4:13 AM: Life for the Unattractive

I'm only beautiful from a certain angle, in a special light! Is there no hope for me? You may say there's only hope for me from a certain angle in a special light. Uggghhhh!

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 4:05 AM: Why Act Morally?

morgenrote, I have just wanted to point in certain directions with the single sentence, like to honesty, integrity, social viability and, of course, bodily and intellectual sensitivities. It's certainly, as you say, insufficient, but it may not be unfruitful. You can also consider my post of 04/24/09 - 08:08 PM.

Posted Apr 25, 2009 - 3:51 AM: Authentic Philosophy

Usually, it's difficult to see final solutions to any one question in philosophy so generally I don't think people are obliged to stick to or "practise" a certain direction in philosophy as there may come up new and interesting arguments that may turn people around or tend to other questions. I do, however, think that people should be honest and give their best in the philosophical discussion. Just my opinion.

Posted Apr 24, 2009 - 7:13 PM: Is intelligence a bad thing?

Let me jump into this discussion! To begin with: is intelligence a bad thing? It is never a bad thing! In this, I include morality as a trait of intelligence. You write that people who spend the most of their resources to their prospects of reproducing will dominate the future gene pool. I'd like to make an example to virtually prove you wrong. Let's say, I'm a scientist who lives his life, fucks for the fun of it, works for the career, makes absolutely no children and has a joyride in full. The only contribution of this scientist for the sake of reproducing, is that he has his full genetic code stored on a computer system. The scientist gets old and dies. After that and quite a few years into the future, a few people analyse the scientist's life and find him worthy of a project that reproduces the gene code into a virtually perfect sperm-cell which they fertilise an egg with from a very healthy woman. They do, indeed, seem to be the perfect match. If the woman gives birth to this child, it will mean that this scientist has succeeded in his primal duties while not, perhaps, having a single thought of feeding or caring for any children. Obviously, this is not the case today, but any model barely resembling this example where the scientist hasn't put down a dime for his offspring, that is, his effort for the sake of reproduction is close to zero percent, 0%, of his total resources. There is more, of course. Intelligent people are also the best servants. They get the most work done, the fastest. Now, further assume that this particular country has a population that stays stable. As people die, people are born. The consequence of this is that optimal amounts of attention and resources are used on the future generations to provide the country with the most promising future possible according to resources of which the intelligentsia refines. I just want to strongly protest against that kind of rat-race philosophy insinuated by yoomzoom in starting this thread in this fashion. I suggest you spend your time well in the Philosophy Forums and give your posts more thought before you post them. What is presented in this thread by you is certainly not up to the standard, I think. When probably 90% of the world population contribute to the future genepool, I certainly don't think it strengthens your argument of natural selection, does it? What I'd like to imply with my post, is that there is sheer intelligence in choosing to contribute to fewer offspring when the environment is cringing under the weight of overpopulation. Actually, I think the best alternative is to naturally decrease world population to half of what it is in 2006.

Posted Apr 24, 2009 - 4:45 PM: Debate 12 discussion: Does God Exist?

Can I ask if it is really necessary that God is transcendent? If we by the God-particle doesn't mean the Higgs particle, but something pointing to a God phenomenon of playing a vital role in the formation of consciousness, let's say, hypothetically, what then? If we make some tremendous discovery of finding a vast entity necessary for our being in this universe then what? I don't think it may be necessary to put the God-concept out of reach of experience to argue for the fantastic. All in all, I think of the singularity just as well or even more mind-blowing than the concept of God. Just to make a scientific theory with all its words, jargon and consensus is certainly not enough to make the cut with me! Unfortunately, God is still some way off a description pointing in its direction. So, transcendence, is it really necessary? What do you say? Edit: I'm very irritated by the lack of completeness in the Standard Model in physics, but it may also be a hope with us, believers. Is not like a miracle unravelling just to consider completing the Standard Model?

Posted Apr 24, 2009 - 3:07 PM: God as "good" or "bad"?

To turn against God may be the same as turning against yourself if God is really permeative. The best betrayal may be the pure egoism combined with atheism, but I think even that may be eclipsing God's ways.

Posted Apr 24, 2009 - 12:48 PM: Insanity?

"How can we tell who's really insane?" They make really stupid choices from a normal, functioning point of view. Like that of having a collection of dead people they have killed in their closet. Or having a number of ladies' panties in a hollowed out book of Grey's Anatomy.

Posted Apr 24, 2009 - 12:08 PM: Why Act Morally?

Let's say we have a teleological ethics-system that has as its tangible goal to stay socially included. This is the conclusion of this argument. A premise for the argument may be that we should behave morally to be social people. If we behave immorally, we become asocial people. A situation that may be amended by behaving morally to that degree that you are included again into the social fold. We can perhaps add that if we cross a certain line, we may lose the possibility forever to achieve a social life. If it's getting that bad, what is left than to die in shame and with a bad conscience? It may well be viable that our morality is the lubricant of society and that there many issues further from that point on. Thus I disagree with your analysis in your answer, poiko, to me. I also think there are contextual matters that are explained here that are included in my previous post in this thread. Is this alright with you all? P1) Acting immorally makes you blind to further immorality. P2) Acting morally makes you keep a sense of what is moral. P3) If you act morally you are a social person. P4) You act morally. C1) You are a social person. A possible alternative: P5) You act immorally. P6) You become morally blind and unable to become a social person. C2) You die as a reclusive, deviant f*ck!

Posted Apr 24, 2009 - 11:10 AM: Why Act Morally?

You should act morally so that you stay sanely sensitive to other people. If you don't, you become one dumb, insensitive bully and I don't think it is any good.
Aetixintro writes:
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.
There are probably a hundred other reasons I should mention, but I don't.
P.S. Excuse me for not having read the whole thread. If it's a serious mistake, I'll get back to it.

Posted Apr 23, 2009 - 5:02 AM: Scientific truth

erik_n wrote: What is scientific truth? I take it we are past the epistemology, but still the same I say that scientific truth has been through the processing of both the tripartite definition of knowledge and the HDM, hypothetico-deductive method, and has been given consensus in the scientific community and thus given the status of scientific truth. One example is the model of the atom. I'd like to remind people that every object in the fringes of and in the combined life-world of every human being is regarded in science. Many of these are of course scientific truths. I believe there is little use of contesting the status of certain grain in the agriculture and certain trees and plants in biology. There are consequently very many examples. I'd also like to remind people they should hold scientific theories and scientific truths apart, but this is implied in what I have already written. erik_n wrote: Can truth change? As such, truth is as stable as the world is coherent, I hold. If truth changes one should be able to see many funny effects, but they are of course absent. erik_n wrote: Do new theories mean that old ones are "untrue"? I say yes on this one. Let us look at the example of Newtonian theory that has been relieved by Einsteinian theory. The two theories conflict on several issues and the theory of Einstein has proven superiority by far. By the way, it has been known for a long time, even before Einstein has delivered his theory that the Newtonian theory is wrong or unable to account for certain facts. longfun wrote: To accept theory as truth does not make it truth. I think in this instance that truth goes as far as the word truth can be used. Is it true that the world exists for humanity now? Of course it is! longfun wrote: Look at "the earth is flat" or even "evolution" Can you elaborate on this?

Posted Apr 22, 2009 - 4:47 PM: The Potential of Science

The Potential of Science is the revelation of all miracles and the proper description of them in the coherent whole!

Posted Apr 22, 2009 - 4:02 PM: God as "good" or "bad"?

If you attribute non-superior qualities to God, I believe you equally well do away with the whole monotheism. Why is this? If God is not the representation of the best then God can be a number of things. It's not necessary that it's one entity even. There may be many lesser Gods doing this and that and suddenly the flying spaghetti monster pops up. The way I see it the whole logic of a God breaks down. A possible consequence may be that you assign, let's say, one day in the week to a dominating force of a kind of God so that you have 7 given gods or a variation of this. This is less credible than the idea of God representing the best, perfect of certain kinds. Why should we think God is good? A human being may in some circles be seen as the best there is in terms of consciousness. As people flourish you also celebrate this consciousness and I therefore think the implication is given. Consciousness is given an eternal, heavenly life. A possible solution to the problem of evil may be that evil can't in real terms compare to the miracle of God. As the evil is no comparison to the good of God, only the good counts, finally given by the relief of death!

Posted Apr 17, 2009 - 2:57 AM: Down the road of Philosophy of Mind

What lies down the road in Phil. of Mind (PoM) in light of empirical findings? I find that the various theories of PoM are useful comments to my favourite theory. How do you see the possible reinforcements of theories? Are the mainstream theories equally strong? Do you think there is a chance of any decisive finding in this century?

Posted Apr 6, 2009 - 8:51 PM: Reverse Engineering God

The anomalies of life, consciousness and existence itself are reasons to believe in some kind of God, in my eyes. You are wrong to assume that I keep any religious belief in the face of evidence of the contrary. Children learn quite quickly that their wishes do not make it so. That is correct. However, adults may give any unlikelihood a shot still the same, despite the odds. As for the argument, I'm happy with coherent body of sentences, no matter how loosely connected, that make up a belief in God. If a good competing body of sentences turn my head the other way, so be it! Also, I guess you and 180 Proof are atheists. Is it the case then that you'll not accept any belief in God presented by others when it comes to the argument because you believe in the best option there is? If you confirm this then we have come to the end of discussion.

Posted Apr 6, 2009 - 5:47 PM: Reverse Engineering God

Thanks for your response of 04/06/09 - 06:11 AM in particular, 180 Proof! I think you, Kwalish Kid and 180 Proof, miss the point that this is not about knowledge, it is about belief. This belief is not supposed to be a founded belief as in a known entity. It's therefore a religious belief. You can, of course, wish the scientists working on abiogenesis good luck and I'm among them. To me, you say science gives the answers and not only that, but the only answers and I stand critical to that kind of view. I don't have the time to rely on answers that may come about in another 2000 years from the scientific community, my mind demand those fundamental answers now! While the non-believers are apt to accept final death, I'm not and this sense is deeply founded in me. It's one of those questions where the current science falls short. As I have pointed out, God remains the cause of the effects of the anomalies of the origin of life and consciousness, essentially and the rest, secondarily. When it comes to reality, it's not necessary to mention "beginning" and I may just the same claim that God constitute the reality from a primordial view to which we know reality today. I don't think it's dishonest to have a religious belief. I see the science as you do and Intelligent Design is not in it. I'll answer you, Kwalish Kid and 180 Proof, in greater detail later though I'm happy if you respond to this latest reply as well.

Posted Apr 5, 2009 - 8:55 PM: Reverse Engineering God

God is unknown. How would you try to define something unknown? I'm not some maniac defining God to be Superman in outer space. It has to be vague. What kind of improvements would you like to see? There is certainly something that separates my view from the atheistic.

Posted Apr 5, 2009 - 8:07 PM: Reverse Engineering God

180 Proof wrote: "Define god." My concept of God is ad hoc on what adheres to the beginning of reality, which includes the universe, with life and consciousness in it. The concept needs to be a kind of consciousness and can be a mechanism or dormant entity that has laid down the functions of reality beforehand. It is the sole source of origin of life and souls. Is it good enough?

Posted Apr 5, 2009 - 7:15 PM: Reverse Engineering God

I'm a Deist. I have considered the cases of non-believing and believing a lot and there may not be so much separating the two. I agree that the belief I hold to some kind of God is uncertain, I think the non-believers have a lot of explaining to do regarding the miracle of life. Isn't it crucial whether we can create life from the classically viewed dead material? If we at some point may be able to do so, I see that my case for belief has weakened. The stuff Dawkins is getting at is perfectly alright. It is not the issue. I want to identify the mechanism of consciousness no matter how far out it may seem or how minute its origin is. I go with all of science, that should be perfectly clear. What is the attitude toward consciousness and origin of life that is held by non-believers? Why do non-believers cut the amount of possible explanations to that lesser than what is needed for the equation to unlock? Maybe I wrongly place my belief, but at least the possible amount of explanation is greater than what the reality seemingly holds. Instead of all the anomalies, I place that stuff with the concept of some kind of God. In addition, I find a nice haven for morality as well. throng wrote: Is it man's perogative to declare there's a God? Yes, it is! But the affirmation should not contain God more than as a causal possibility of greater or smaller likelihood. Who else is supposed to assert anything like that of a God? We represent the epitome of consciousness combined with range of action. Of course, this doesn't include any eventual aliens that are superior to us. At last, I have one question. Where or how does the reverse engineering enter all of this?

Posted Mar 31, 2009 - 2:07 PM: The flipping of Coins...

Apropos tossing coins.
Donald Gillies in Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century, page 209 writes:
"I tossed an ordinary coin (an old penny) 2,000 times. Calculations show that, if we assume probability(heads)=1/2, there is a probability of 97.3 per cent that m/n will lie in the interval (0.475, 0.525). The observed value of m/n was actually 0.487, giving a confirmation, rather than falsification."
I absolutely recommend the book. The suggestion is that one side in this case receives punishment from a factor of 0.487 because of rubbing contact to the surface.

Posted Mar 24, 2009 - 4:53 PM: Should humanity be kept alive artificially by technology?

I don't think people of ancient times have been any stronger because they have lived without the use of medicine. Technology furthers humanity. It raises the likelihood of tapping a well-educated mind for another 30 years, more or less. I think humanity learns to be stronger in new ways these days. We are discovering new synergies between humanity and technology. If we can keep people alive indefinitely, I say "Do it!". That is, if the system you are part of can afford it. What if we discover some new method in the future where it is possible to leave one's old body with a new one prepared and ready for you? We can take the next step and prolong the most valuable lives even further. Go humanity! Go technology!

Posted Mar 24, 2009 - 1:42 AM: Integrating Human Consciousnesses into Technology

Maybe we are using 10%-12% of the whole brain, but I believe we are using close to 100% of the relevant modules or centres relative to what we cognize. I think it may prove impossible to activate the whole brain at once. It may be that subconsciousness is also taking up some of the capacity. If the human brain is to improve, it needs to get bigger and the hippocampi faster and more potent. There may be a cybernetic version of the hippocampus that is called a gimp. I agree with the computer compared to human.

Posted Mar 23, 2009 - 10:35 AM: Is history invented or discovered?

History is being recorded. One major characteristic of history, is that it is supposed to be documented. Maybe it is the search and the special ways of recording histories that make history interesting, I don't know. Let's say we write history in logical notation, then every account of history should look the same. I find few controversies in history. How many ways are there to account for Gordon Brown speaking to the U.S. Congress or how many ways are there to describe Bill Gates' way to his success? Obviously, there is not so much room to maneuver in. Further, let's say you have a video-recording of something that you are going to narrate and the recording is being archived as the documentation, what is the problem? Are you going to tell about the ghosts?

Posted Mar 22, 2009 - 6:36 AM: What do you think proves God's Existance?

I believe the sentence "I love you" may be open to scientific inquiry by fMRI and mapping the results with Neural correlates of consciousness.
Anyhow, I have a suggestion with this:
A Solution to the Problem of Evil - A Theodicy
God is creating the best possible world. In creating the best possible world, God chooses the best possible process, namely the evolution. In showing shortcomings, people may fail the belief of God and replace partially that belief with ideas that lack in quality and therefore adhere to the instance of nothing. The beliefs that lack in quality make people fail. A bad quality is a quality that lacks in greater quality. The bad quality is therefore marked with something that is missing, it is marked with a degree of nothing. Evil is therefore of instance of nothing. So there it is, the world of something and nothing. God is represented with full and all quality. Perfection in this is open to all but it is of course difficult. In making the small great God is going full circle hence God’s own nature and this constitutes the perfect drama of full quality. It doesn’t necessarily end there. It can continue into more circles of even new dramas of the full scale of smaller quality processes into greater quality processes and back again to the full quality of God. The conclusion of this is naturally that we are a part of a perfect drama between the gravities of nothing and all on the path back to God from where we originated.
There is an assumption in this that everything is created with a certain degree of perfection, that there is a bit of the perfect in all of us.

Posted Mar 20, 2009 - 8:28 PM: Can a Machine Know?

A machine has never shown anything outside syntactic results and therefore, if we never achieve anything better, fundamentally, a machine will never know. There should be a revolution in engineering computers before there is some possibility for it to show something else than mere calculations.

Posted Mar 20, 2009 - 7:18 PM: External World, Does it exist?

A suggestion may be: I am and my being of perception is my internal world. This internal world is my mind, but since I have a mind and genetics tell me I'm a genetic representation of my parents, the function of the mind must follow my being that has been given the birth by my parents, therefore my parents must have minds too and as people die, my parents will and I remain. As my parents represents others who also die, I die. That which remains when I'm dead, is the external world, the world between myself, my parents and others.

Posted Mar 20, 2009 - 6:45 PM: I'm HAPPY ---- argue for unhappiness!

I think that putting yourself and your mind in the most prospective way possible of beneficiaries, here and now, all respects considered, is going to reward you, rightfully, with eternal bliss and reach. Now, go and be unhappy!

Posted Mar 20, 2009 - 6:28 PM: Can we comprehend "nothingness"?

Perhaps, where there is perfect vacuum, on the outside the universe.

Posted Mar 20, 2009 - 4:33 PM: Are Humans a virus to planet earth?

We have the established National Parks, sanctuaries for animals. I also believe that most developed nations have populations that are declining, less the immigration. The solution for the uncontrolled growth is for the world to become developed and arranging 90% of the population to live in cities.
Somehow, I think it is insecurity that is driving people to multiply so much.
Gloucester wrote:
"If we're a virus what is the antibiotic?"
As for The Matrix:
I see the "rebels" as propagating humanity and existentialism and I see the agents, Agent Smith and the like, as representing limiting factors and short-sightedness, in many ways, the materialist who clings to routine and conventional world views.

Posted Mar 15, 2009 - 10:07 AM: Foundations of Philosophy

reincarnated wrote:
"OK. But that doesn’t tell me what “knowledge” is exactly. Does knowledge entail truth, for example?"
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.
reincarnated wrote:
"But the question is whether you believe everything can (in principle) be explained by science/logic, or whether some things require some kind of supernatural explanation?"
Yes. I believe that everything can in principle be explained by science and logic.
reincarnated wrote:
"I’m not sure that any of the propositions in my list are provable (except possibly tautologically) – they are assumed true."
I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used "proved". Apart from that, I think the point is made.
reincarnated wrote:
"If morality is defined as the rightness and wrongness of things, you believe that what is considered right and what is considered wrong is not subjective?"
180 Proof wrote:
"3. We know about quarks, Calabi-Yau manifolds, blind sight, Euclid's axioms, etc. None of which we "experience"."
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.
180 Proof wrote:
"8. As a metaphysical claim it cannot be proven and as a methodological statement it need not be -- either it works or it doesn't."
It is taken, see above.
180 Proof wrote:
"10. I think I understand this but..."
180 Proof wrote:
"11. Kant was mistaken."
We disagree here. I think one is wrong to point to Kant's Christian background.

Posted Mar 8, 2009 - 12:10 PM: Psychiatry-Pseudocience?

Can I just add, I haven't followed the entire discussion, that psychology/psychiatry is not always based on consensus of what is normal, but also the degree of functional capacities, you know, like speed of reactions, steadiness of mind, capacity and reliability of memory, all in all, the cognitive abilities?
Mental illnesses usually come with defects in functional abilities like with social interaction. I believe psy./psy. are not so much about the mindset as long as one is interacting well in social terms and one deals well in the workplace. You can believe what you want, but there is a demand that you cope with the environment in functional terms as long as the environment is not of extreme kinds.

Posted Feb 27, 2009 - 12:57 PM: H. P. Grice, Logic and Conversation

I am reading the article, Logic and Conversation, and I am struggling to get to terms with it. It seems to me that any implication in ordinary language, important, can't make an implication without breaking a rule of clarity or falling victim to contextual infinite regress.
What do you think of the article and what are your opinions about it? Can you, please, make references when possible?
Obviously, there are major differences in clarity between unnatural and natural languages. I look forward to your replies.

No comments:

Post a Comment