Intro: I am happy to present you Star no. 2 of 3 stars over all the 6 Nobel Prizes, including Literature, also as science, and Peace, as Political Science. Economics isn't questioned really for being science, probably mostly referred to with being made up of Mathematics.
The transmission is, of course, that fact p enters your mind and that you are able to justify this notion of fact p entering your mind. Thus, the transmission should be very clear!
The Transmission Argument has been my line of thought ever since I've started to investigate epistemological circumstances and eyeing the possibility to express it in words as I've now done! This is the reason for this writing's title even today when it may just as well be "Epistemological Integrity as Decisive Property"!
Tagline: You need to set the environment right in order to get results and you also need the right investigation on that environment to get results.
This work is meant as an addition to or a critique of the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
It is a matter of being in the spin so to speak. Information can be said to be fluctuating from what is perceived to the perceiver, but also from the perceiver to what is being perceived in the way that the logic of the perceiver has an effect on what is seen. This can be recognised as a postulation. The issue is that perception has some integrity connected to it both from the perceived and from the perceiver. In this way the words, the idiom, 'to be in the situation' comes to its full rights as with this 'an undivided being (between us) between the perceived and the perceiver.
The classic, epistemologic resolve:
1 fact p
2 person a believes fact p,
3 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
Concl.: Person a has knowledge
Further comment:
1. Let's say you have a 100% hunch to what you are looking for.
2. Let's say you have a 100% data-material to what you are looking for.
3. Let's say you have a 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit".
Sum: You have the answer to what you are looking for.
Dictionary.com defines integrity as "2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire" which is in this, my, interpretation to be a relationship between yourself as the scientist and your object of knowledge. The relationship between you and the object is whole in some sense, whether to a complex or parts of it.
Collated into:
1 fact p
2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p
3 person a believes fact p
4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for
5 person a has 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit" to what he is looking for
6 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
(7) Conclusion: person a has knowledge
This certifies knowledge and it is irrefutable.
Various comments:
You only need one of the percentages to be 100% and the other two to be to the least degree to have this certified and irrefutable knowledge! But then again, I've not been wrong in writing 100% on all three of them and claim the same! That I'm writing this now can't be held against me in my opinion.
You should also note that the two sentences or lines, "2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p" and "4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for", are redundant in the strict sense and that they are mostly added for extra sense, explanatory impact, that may enable people to have more use of this information. All this should be obvious!
Thus this kind of Epistemic Integrity is not a virtue in this context. It's a requirement.
While Frederick F. Schmitt writes about integrity as a kind of virtue, I think of it as kind of (natural) property about you and your relationship to your data (and to the end-point of investigation, being a kind of revelation of new data, possibly, a discovery). To formulate a "law" is rather a matter of aptitude to one's own skill in relation to what you have before you and thus not so much a kind of "Integrity" in my sense because the propositions, logics and knowledge base are already in your head. Thus I think it's absurd to speak of Integrity toward what is already in your head and mostly a matter of logics and mathematics to put together. If you however, become well acquainted with your data, have a great "Integrity", then you may generate this "law" more easily. Thus this "law"-making may be a kind of "Integrity"-issue in this sense.
Another remark on Schmitt's Epistemic Integrity which I find is used to tear away credibility from the Perspectivists who most people, I believe, see as unserious people in Epistemology. Therefore Epistemic Integrity destroys Perspectivism. In Schmitt's perception, by my interpretation, a charge is being made against unreasonable or dubious epistemologists claiming the Perspectivism position.
Epistemic Integrity then has to be decided among a larger community for it to be credited to a person or to a proposition that's held by this person. One should remember that Integrity in English most often equals Honesty and telling the truth. Thus from the ethical Integrity to epistemic Integrity, Integrity enters the meaning of honesty and reasonability concerning epistemological views/propositions/claims!
Therefore, as Schmitt's Integrity is designed to remove Perspectivism as a credible position, I design Integrity as a property of your own relation to research data that, in my opinion, leads to certified and irrefutable knowledge! Not that this is important to write, but it seems to me that Schmitt is using Integrity differently than I do, hence I cite Merleau-Ponty differently than he does in that same respect. My description is also significantly different from his and I think it's plausible that these 2 different interpretations can be given Epistemic Integrity. You can think about this for yourself... I leave it at that for now, possibly until the purchase of Kornblith's book (2001).
Educational note. It's implicit that "data" and indeed "fact p" are all data leading up to and including fact p! If you are to acquire fact p, you do indeed need to also know the necessary underlying factors. I think this is pointed out by examinations of Entailment in Epistemology. While Entailment should be logically valid and sound if properly set up in logical structure, it may be alluringly simple to consider Epistemology only as setting up some logical relations. Therefore, it must be clear that I see epistemology as hard work, most of the time, being thorough investigation and invention of right words to right contexts and design of apparatus and approach to closure of examination!
The Closure Principle, loosely, by example of Sir Alexander Fleming and his discovery of the Penicillin:
1. Rubble takes place with various accidents such that fact of Penicillin obtains
2. By his competence, Sir Alexander Fleming detects some anomaly to be further described
3. Sir Alexander Fleming determines this to be Penicillin
4. Sir Alexander Fleming has made the Penicillin knowledge to the world (and as I see it, it will stand as knowledge forever!!!)
So how do you want it? I think all knowledge can be expressed through such a chain of entailing descriptions by this Closure Principle. My Integrity stands thus as a kind of working approach, one that determines the relationship between the fact P and researcher, person, A for knowledge to irrefutably obtain. I think we are facing the Utopia for Epistemology in this decade to come!
By false belief status the model splits like this:
Model 1
person A has belief in fact P falsely
fact P (non-existing)
person A is not justified in belief of fact P
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a false belief)
Model 2
person A has belief in fact F (non-existing)
fact F
person A is not justified in belief of fact F
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a belief isn't there, that is, far more obvious than model 1)
By mere illusion of belief (possibly not necessary) the model splits like this:
Model 1
person A has belief in fact P by mere illusion (also falsely, thus)
fact P (non-existing)
person A is not justified in belief of fact P
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a false belief)
Model 2
person A has belief in fact F (non-existing)
fact F of how the illusion arises
person A is not justified in belief of fact F
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a belief isn't there, that is, far more obvious than model 1 I'd like to add here that even if the illusion isn't detected by person A, there is most certainly explanatory force in adding this explanation, epistemologically speaking, as above)
The argument doesn't include the Integrity stuff because it's simplified! Besides, Integrity can also be seen as a part of Justification.
You may think that this argument undermines the Gettier argument and I think so too!
The Closure Principle for JTB, all cases.
JTB for sodium carbonnitrate:
B: I have the belief that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
T: There is a fact such that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
J: Given the scientific justification of this substance's existence and therefore the plausibility to say that it exists, I am justified in believing that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
Clearly then:
I have the belief that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)) and therefore set up a scientific chemistry arrangement of the necessary parts.
The scientific chemistry arrangement of the necessary parts proves scientifically, also by testing/confirmation later, that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
Given the fact that the scientific chemistry arrangement of the necessary parts proves scientifically, also by testing/confirmation later, that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)), I am justified in believing that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
Symbolisation, constituted by the above, w/o UoD:
B
B → C
C → S
S → J (JTB)
J
Conclusion: J (JTB) by Closure Principle procedure.
This logical deduction proves that JTB is entailed by the Closure Principle by plain logics, "the hypothetical syllogism" or "many-parts Modus Ponens deduction".
Note: there is a special historical reason for the examples of chemistry to enter here. We'll come back to this.
Extra: By this, and most exemplary, it is clear that the history of chemical reactions, as this precipitation reaction above, is covered by the Closure Principle.
BTW, the usual two for the Nobel Prizes have been references, plain number and recognition/weighted grade.
The epistemology of "Improved Closure Principle",
we simply use the definition of Plato and say this:
Belief
Fact
Justified True Belief with HDM, also a modified HDM for discoveries. That is, HDM enters the JTB of Plato as standard part! The Closure Principle has been about the _deductive_ part earlier, but now it's been improved with the whole H-D-M.
So we simply use the definition of Plato and say this:
Belief
Fact
Justified True Belief with HDM, also a modified HDM for discoveries.
The fact that the JTB part always contains HDM (hypothetico-deductive method) makes this an "improved" Closure Principle. Justified true belief (JTB) closes the belief and fact together, plausibly!
In the future, I may consider to add examples to this The Transmission Argument. We'll see!
By L. F. Olsnes-Lea (formerly Terje Lea)
Note: The guilt of not having finished this lies totally on Norway for obstructing the normal ways to academic performance in my life, rather choosing a despicable, lunatic strategy for seeking influence in suppressing my person, thus making very awful psychological impressions to people and without bothering that this takes place too!
You may want to take note of the word "stratagem", but please add a big deal of idiocy!
Note2: That this makes me look a bit like a fool must be clear, but Norway has chosen "dumb" as virtue for itself and it has forced me to detours and greater delays. File your complaints to Idiot-Norway, please!
----
Additional "technical" information, non-philosophical:
Terje Lea © November, 2004, Terje Lea © March, 2006, Terje Lea © July, 2010, Terje Lea © January, 2011 and Terje Lea © February, 2011.
A comment on integrity is added 05.11.2009.
Note: the last comment has by and large first been published on the Philosophy Now forum 11.02.2011.
Note2: The following paragraph has been made 09.11.2004 (2004-11-09) and it is: It is a matter of being in the spin so to speak. Information can be said to be fluctuating from what is perceived to the perceiver, but also from the perceiver to what is being perceived in the way that the logic of the perceiver has an effect on what is seen. This can be recognised as a postulation. The issue is that perception has some integrity connected to it both from the perceived and from the perceiver. In this way the words, the idiom, 'to be in the situation' comes to its full rights as with this 'an undivided being (between us) between the perceived and the perceiver.
Note3: Some of this text is "secured" by RSS data since 2010.
Monday, 15 July 2013
The Efficiency Argument - Philosophy of Science - Star no. 1 over the 6 Nobel Prizes
Intro: I am happy to present you one of 3 stars over all the 6 Nobel Prizes, including Literature, also as science, and Peace, as Political Science. Economics isn't questioned really for being science, probably mostly referred to with being made up of Mathematics.
Definition of Efficiency (one of them): Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. -'Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary from Gramercy.
The solution by The Efficiency Argument is two-sided. It demands the theory to be as slim as possible and that it successfully describes the phenomena in the observation set it is supposed to describe.
In a sense, this gives the right map/"theory" to the right landscape/"phenomena in the observation set", to be blunt.
This work is meant as a criticism insofar I like to shatter the kind of skepticism Feyerabend is promoting, or a complementation, contrast of the book, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, I think, of Paul Feyerabend.
I.e.: The whole of science is explainable by the sole use of HDM, hypothetico-deductive-method.
A possible mindset of a beginning: a 'fact' may be something else than a fact, but 'a result' is usually a result of a rational process and is therefore more desirable to obtain than 'a fact'. It is why I would find 'a result' more plausible as an objective to a theory of science rather than 'a fact'. This underpins the continuation that will look at all processes like methods and like everything else in order to make a system of discoveries into processes. The rational processes will in turn make 'facts' into results.
My work will be in the crossfire between Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend where I emphasise HDM and Efficiency with Impact sided with efficiency. It will be something with a touch of foundationalism (inductivism has died).
It's worth noting that The Efficiency Argument solves nicely the tack-on problem in Philosophy of Science because it cuts the theory down to the minimum required to describe the experimental data.
Efficiency goes through the whole row of science: efficient framework/method (HDM, Fallibilism, Falsificationism/Confirmation) which makes efficient theories (minimally complex and sufficient enough to serve the empirical foundation) which in turn effectively describes the observation set of phenomena correctly. In essence, any concept or proposition that's added to the theory in question has to add meaning to the theory's empirical foundation.
The Efficiency Argument entails:
* The Efficiency Argument itself
* Fallibilism
* HDM
* Falsification/Confirmation
* (Possibly Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein)
* Significance graphs (by Philip Kitcher)
* The theories themselves
* The process of making these theories
Declaration of the definitive kind, the job has been largely completed and no new literature is required to finish the argument:
There may be minor changes to this list, but none of them will be from literature that's published after 02.02.2010 and the additional information that's written to this title after this date, is also of no crucial importance to making this declaration of what has already been presented here. What has been written under this title up to this date is sufficient itself for making the declaration except this possible, little addition that has been mentioned.
There's no allowance here that relieves you of the need to explain empirical meanings/consequences for example. To describe by minimum requirements doesn't mean that you leave something out of the picture or that you can leave something out of the picture, justifyingly.
I think the realists are well supported by this, being a scientific realist, myself.
When I mention "efficiency" it's for setting focus on possible limits for speculation in shaping (every) theory according to its empirical foundation and the novel conceptual use/utility. I'm not sure if this explains it properly, but I'm in the beginning of the project (although being at it since 2004).
Additional virtue of this argument is that it allows some metaphysics to be included as long as it serves the cause of scientific efficiency. This has been a problem with other demarcation criteria, famously exemplified by Wittgenstein declaring his work of metaphysical nature to be burnt after having been used. This is no longer a requirement!
It should also be commonplace to remark that reading science should inform you of the latest development and the smartest solution to what you're reading, normatively speaking, insofar the science presented really is science and not a document of history and that the science has been carried out properly in being the current, best science. In effect, you're always rewarded in getting informed and updated on a scientific problem, theoretically, in the science being the latest, newest science.
I don't deny that (1)The Efficiency Argument can't be rephrased as what contributes to science or what has use to science, thus you can think of (2)The Argument of Contribution or (3)The Argument of Use/Utility. These 3 arguments should all be totally equivalent if formulated in the same (somewhat) scope.
Occam's Razor may also be similar to this argument in the sense of Isaac Newton's:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Some people may question themselves why I haven't added the references of for example Karl Popper with The Efficiency Argument and the answer to this is that circumstances haven't allowed me to finish it properly and that this is not a fully developed paper of academic quality yet. No, it's now only "idea and cast" for this very important paper to the World, one that I've "designed the bones" to.
I can also admit that with Confirmation/HDM (Hypothetico-Deductive-Method)/Scientific Method (compl. entailed by HDM) Objectivity and Replication have been missing from the text in that very pedagogical sense until mentioned now.
In the meanwhile, you will have to wait some time more, uknown for how long because of a stressful "political" situation, i.e., the lack of access to library and university resources and calmness to get this paper properly grounded.
Fallibilism (falsifiability) is the strict scientific demand to formulate a theory so that it can be defeated, simply. That there is a kind of theoretical demand to elaborate on a theory to make it clear how it can be imagined to fail given a consideration of the evidence, fx., or an alternative way to opposing theory, maybe given some other finding, let's say, for the time being.
Falsification on the other hand is about being able to prove, whether proponent to a theory or in opposition to it. Either way, the data-set, method and results are to go through the falsification process to see if they pass as credible/plausible.
In short,
Fallibilism: the theoretical ability for a theory to fail, such that one doesn't enter drivel like psudoscience by soothsaying of identifying "your" stars or looking through some tarot cards for yielding revelations to your own life. Very important.
Again,
fallibilism: the theoretical possibility for a theory to fail.
Falsification: isn't so much about the very theory at all, it can be directed toward the results, the method and data-set. Falsification is a far more practical notion than fallibilism, but on the other hand, there are many theorists looking to kill a theory by the fallibilistic attack.
Again,
falsification: the inquiry into a theory, first and foremost, by investigating the data-set, the method and the results.
Therefore, it must be d*mn clear that these two concepts can never be dropped from any complete Demarcation of Science Criterium, holding a set under it, these two ideas included.
They are found in Karl Popper's, outside the papers, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co, 1959, pp. 57 - 73.
(This is a temporary note until finished paper. I must also note you that I'm not able to finish this paper in the ChicagoStyleM yet.)
Other expression:
Fallibilism is outside the theory as matter of theory strike-field.
Falsification is inside the theory as matter of theory strike-field, also the slight note on formulating the theory/hypothesis (a bit description) of how the phenomena are to be entailed by the theory/hypothesis.
I hereby declare the Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science for solved by this, under The Efficiency Argument! Hurray! Fireworks!
By L. F. Olsnes-Lea (formerly Terje Lea)
Note: The guilt of not having finished this lies totally on Norway for obstructing the normal ways to academic performance in my life, rather choosing a despicable, lunatic strategy for seeking influence in suppressing my person, thus making very awful psychological impressions to people and without bothering that this takes place too!
You may want to take note of the word "stratagem", but please add a big deal of idiocy!
Note2: That this makes me look a bit like a fool must be clear, but Norway has chosen "dumb" as virtue for itself and it has forced me to detours and greater delays. File your complaints to Idiot-Norway, please!
----
Additional "technical" information, non-philosophical:
Terje Lea©December, 2004, Terje Lea©February, 2005, Terje Lea©March, 2007, Terje Lea©January, 2010 and Terje Lea©February, 2010.
(The Declaration for the Solution to the Problem of Demarcation in Philosophy of Science has taken place 2nd February, 2010.)
I've added Philip Kitcher's Significance graphs today, 20.02.2011 although it has been added to the writing of the Philosophy Now forum for some time now (since 18.02.2011).
Dates for special sections: 2005-02-25 and 2007-03-05.
Definition of Efficiency (one of them): Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. -'Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary from Gramercy.
The solution by The Efficiency Argument is two-sided. It demands the theory to be as slim as possible and that it successfully describes the phenomena in the observation set it is supposed to describe.
In a sense, this gives the right map/"theory" to the right landscape/"phenomena in the observation set", to be blunt.
This work is meant as a criticism insofar I like to shatter the kind of skepticism Feyerabend is promoting, or a complementation, contrast of the book, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, I think, of Paul Feyerabend.
I.e.: The whole of science is explainable by the sole use of HDM, hypothetico-deductive-method.
A possible mindset of a beginning: a 'fact' may be something else than a fact, but 'a result' is usually a result of a rational process and is therefore more desirable to obtain than 'a fact'. It is why I would find 'a result' more plausible as an objective to a theory of science rather than 'a fact'. This underpins the continuation that will look at all processes like methods and like everything else in order to make a system of discoveries into processes. The rational processes will in turn make 'facts' into results.
My work will be in the crossfire between Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend where I emphasise HDM and Efficiency with Impact sided with efficiency. It will be something with a touch of foundationalism (inductivism has died).
It's worth noting that The Efficiency Argument solves nicely the tack-on problem in Philosophy of Science because it cuts the theory down to the minimum required to describe the experimental data.
Efficiency goes through the whole row of science: efficient framework/method (HDM, Fallibilism, Falsificationism/Confirmation) which makes efficient theories (minimally complex and sufficient enough to serve the empirical foundation) which in turn effectively describes the observation set of phenomena correctly. In essence, any concept or proposition that's added to the theory in question has to add meaning to the theory's empirical foundation.
The Efficiency Argument entails:
* The Efficiency Argument itself
* Fallibilism
* HDM
* Falsification/Confirmation
* (Possibly Philosophical Investigations by Wittgenstein)
* Significance graphs (by Philip Kitcher)
* The theories themselves
* The process of making these theories
Declaration of the definitive kind, the job has been largely completed and no new literature is required to finish the argument:
There may be minor changes to this list, but none of them will be from literature that's published after 02.02.2010 and the additional information that's written to this title after this date, is also of no crucial importance to making this declaration of what has already been presented here. What has been written under this title up to this date is sufficient itself for making the declaration except this possible, little addition that has been mentioned.
There's no allowance here that relieves you of the need to explain empirical meanings/consequences for example. To describe by minimum requirements doesn't mean that you leave something out of the picture or that you can leave something out of the picture, justifyingly.
I think the realists are well supported by this, being a scientific realist, myself.
When I mention "efficiency" it's for setting focus on possible limits for speculation in shaping (every) theory according to its empirical foundation and the novel conceptual use/utility. I'm not sure if this explains it properly, but I'm in the beginning of the project (although being at it since 2004).
Additional virtue of this argument is that it allows some metaphysics to be included as long as it serves the cause of scientific efficiency. This has been a problem with other demarcation criteria, famously exemplified by Wittgenstein declaring his work of metaphysical nature to be burnt after having been used. This is no longer a requirement!
It should also be commonplace to remark that reading science should inform you of the latest development and the smartest solution to what you're reading, normatively speaking, insofar the science presented really is science and not a document of history and that the science has been carried out properly in being the current, best science. In effect, you're always rewarded in getting informed and updated on a scientific problem, theoretically, in the science being the latest, newest science.
I don't deny that (1)The Efficiency Argument can't be rephrased as what contributes to science or what has use to science, thus you can think of (2)The Argument of Contribution or (3)The Argument of Use/Utility. These 3 arguments should all be totally equivalent if formulated in the same (somewhat) scope.
Occam's Razor may also be similar to this argument in the sense of Isaac Newton's:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Some people may question themselves why I haven't added the references of for example Karl Popper with The Efficiency Argument and the answer to this is that circumstances haven't allowed me to finish it properly and that this is not a fully developed paper of academic quality yet. No, it's now only "idea and cast" for this very important paper to the World, one that I've "designed the bones" to.
I can also admit that with Confirmation/HDM (Hypothetico-Deductive-Method)/Scientific Method (compl. entailed by HDM) Objectivity and Replication have been missing from the text in that very pedagogical sense until mentioned now.
In the meanwhile, you will have to wait some time more, uknown for how long because of a stressful "political" situation, i.e., the lack of access to library and university resources and calmness to get this paper properly grounded.
Fallibilism (falsifiability) is the strict scientific demand to formulate a theory so that it can be defeated, simply. That there is a kind of theoretical demand to elaborate on a theory to make it clear how it can be imagined to fail given a consideration of the evidence, fx., or an alternative way to opposing theory, maybe given some other finding, let's say, for the time being.
Falsification on the other hand is about being able to prove, whether proponent to a theory or in opposition to it. Either way, the data-set, method and results are to go through the falsification process to see if they pass as credible/plausible.
In short,
Fallibilism: the theoretical ability for a theory to fail, such that one doesn't enter drivel like psudoscience by soothsaying of identifying "your" stars or looking through some tarot cards for yielding revelations to your own life. Very important.
Again,
fallibilism: the theoretical possibility for a theory to fail.
Falsification: isn't so much about the very theory at all, it can be directed toward the results, the method and data-set. Falsification is a far more practical notion than fallibilism, but on the other hand, there are many theorists looking to kill a theory by the fallibilistic attack.
Again,
falsification: the inquiry into a theory, first and foremost, by investigating the data-set, the method and the results.
Therefore, it must be d*mn clear that these two concepts can never be dropped from any complete Demarcation of Science Criterium, holding a set under it, these two ideas included.
They are found in Karl Popper's, outside the papers, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co, 1959, pp. 57 - 73.
(This is a temporary note until finished paper. I must also note you that I'm not able to finish this paper in the ChicagoStyleM yet.)
Other expression:
Fallibilism is outside the theory as matter of theory strike-field.
Falsification is inside the theory as matter of theory strike-field, also the slight note on formulating the theory/hypothesis (a bit description) of how the phenomena are to be entailed by the theory/hypothesis.
I hereby declare the Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science for solved by this, under The Efficiency Argument! Hurray! Fireworks!
By L. F. Olsnes-Lea (formerly Terje Lea)
Note: The guilt of not having finished this lies totally on Norway for obstructing the normal ways to academic performance in my life, rather choosing a despicable, lunatic strategy for seeking influence in suppressing my person, thus making very awful psychological impressions to people and without bothering that this takes place too!
You may want to take note of the word "stratagem", but please add a big deal of idiocy!
Note2: That this makes me look a bit like a fool must be clear, but Norway has chosen "dumb" as virtue for itself and it has forced me to detours and greater delays. File your complaints to Idiot-Norway, please!
----
Additional "technical" information, non-philosophical:
Terje Lea©December, 2004, Terje Lea©February, 2005, Terje Lea©March, 2007, Terje Lea©January, 2010 and Terje Lea©February, 2010.
(The Declaration for the Solution to the Problem of Demarcation in Philosophy of Science has taken place 2nd February, 2010.)
I've added Philip Kitcher's Significance graphs today, 20.02.2011 although it has been added to the writing of the Philosophy Now forum for some time now (since 18.02.2011).
Dates for special sections: 2005-02-25 and 2007-03-05.
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
The Mask of Sanity - Walking up the book afterall...
To "Mask of Sanity" as academic program
Over my comment to Chapter 43 of Mask of Sanity, p. 383, 3rd ed., 1955, Hervey Cleckley, regarding "Absence of Delusions" and more by the header, I start with the word "Integrity".
The comment has been, as with other parts of this book, that the psychopath is most certainly no superman and that there are deep flaws to this kind (mentally pathologic) behaviour such as failure to relate properly with other people, in particular the ethical side.
That this furthers a kind of stupid side to their personality if not entirely obvious on the surface, by the immediate meeting.
Finally: I contest the contents of chapter 43 that displays the psychopath as this man/woman of brilliance, but as the book carries many stories, the image is more than shattered/incoherent here and there. That the group that's described is a very varied group.I also hope to make a more "instrumented" approach to diagnostication in the months and years to come, along with the real psychiatrists as I will only provide science, not the 1st line, direct contact, in collecting the material. Thus, the approach to mSomatism as Nobel Prize begins to materialise.
It's worth noting that to diagnose mental illness, one needs either of two: self-report or objective behaviour as symptoms (from police or other).
I can also mention the future need to refine both the psychopath scope and the schizophrenic scope more. Preferably along my own theory of mSomatism and Two-Category-Diagnostication System (Schizophrenia and Depression).
(Don't take this for any good beginning at all. This represents merely a temporary filling of text. Some brainstorming for starting it all.)
----------------
Over my comment to Chapter 43 of Mask of Sanity, p. 383, 3rd ed., 1955, Hervey Cleckley, regarding "Absence of Delusions" and more by the header, I ask Facebook to amend a deletion of this comment because they know I have a name and aptness for this. I start with the word "Integrity" and say that I want my comment back. This writing of mine is no joke and it's intended to pave the way for my (professional) life. I have accomplishment in the World.
Private note: 2013-06-30.
Please, hold your breath for me refinding this comment that I may have placed with the blog first afterall.
I have experienced other times when people have gone for my texts, if not much earlier, then at my apartment in Sandnes, Maud****-"something" as I've been writing on mSomatism, finally ending up with some sociologist of USA. This isn't... And I know who I am of course!
If this enters another researcher's book, then I will be aggravated. I consider stealing. That it, the act of taking other people's work and call it one's own, is a deep dishonour, even pathetic.
Over my comment to Chapter 43 of Mask of Sanity, p. 383, 3rd ed., 1955, Hervey Cleckley, regarding "Absence of Delusions" and more by the header, I start with the word "Integrity".
The comment has been, as with other parts of this book, that the psychopath is most certainly no superman and that there are deep flaws to this kind (mentally pathologic) behaviour such as failure to relate properly with other people, in particular the ethical side.
That this furthers a kind of stupid side to their personality if not entirely obvious on the surface, by the immediate meeting.
Finally: I contest the contents of chapter 43 that displays the psychopath as this man/woman of brilliance, but as the book carries many stories, the image is more than shattered/incoherent here and there. That the group that's described is a very varied group.I also hope to make a more "instrumented" approach to diagnostication in the months and years to come, along with the real psychiatrists as I will only provide science, not the 1st line, direct contact, in collecting the material. Thus, the approach to mSomatism as Nobel Prize begins to materialise.
It's worth noting that to diagnose mental illness, one needs either of two: self-report or objective behaviour as symptoms (from police or other).
I can also mention the future need to refine both the psychopath scope and the schizophrenic scope more. Preferably along my own theory of mSomatism and Two-Category-Diagnostication System (Schizophrenia and Depression).
(Don't take this for any good beginning at all. This represents merely a temporary filling of text. Some brainstorming for starting it all.)
----------------
Over my comment to Chapter 43 of Mask of Sanity, p. 383, 3rd ed., 1955, Hervey Cleckley, regarding "Absence of Delusions" and more by the header, I ask Facebook to amend a deletion of this comment because they know I have a name and aptness for this. I start with the word "Integrity" and say that I want my comment back. This writing of mine is no joke and it's intended to pave the way for my (professional) life. I have accomplishment in the World.
Private note: 2013-06-30.
Please, hold your breath for me refinding this comment that I may have placed with the blog first afterall.
I have experienced other times when people have gone for my texts, if not much earlier, then at my apartment in Sandnes, Maud****-"something" as I've been writing on mSomatism, finally ending up with some sociologist of USA. This isn't... And I know who I am of course!
If this enters another researcher's book, then I will be aggravated. I consider stealing. That it, the act of taking other people's work and call it one's own, is a deep dishonour, even pathetic.
Sunday, 16 June 2013
Against Unemployment
The list for combatting unemployment is (for now):
1. Weapons against unemployment: personal security (personal weapon, pistol, and other).
2. Increased security gives greater optimism and lesser corruption because people become less vulnerable.
3. Increased security gives by these two points a further increased initiative (toward industry).
4. That the people should exert pressure to make the Central Bank adjust its parameters to fit a kind of people's interest rate, one that enables moderate aggression toward investment and fighting unemployment.
5. The banks' views on investments and "come on, be part!"-mentality, also a kind of moderate lending aggression (on line with sportly aggression), possibly with a bank-to-bank competetive attitude to generate as much investments per company/corporation as possible.
6. The part that the financial network plays is a particularly active one, also by popularity inventive, possibly too, with extra support or government assurances or, indeed, "investor-insurances" by "private/public investments".
7. That the state-engagement is (pro-)active, that is supports the small profit/no profit enterprises not seen as attractive. That it also considers small losses enterprises.
8. Enterprises are "entertained" even if the work seems needlessly manual and ineffective, merely because it generates "better people tomorrow, also by the workers' kids".
9. Yes, believe it or not, the business arrangements are now more important than ever, reducing the so-called "free competition" significantly. So my recommendation is that a "social" business arrangement by singular, nationally/regionally loyal/patriot businesses and state(s) working together by the business network's organisation, fx. the French and German ones. What I'm talking about: something like Volkswagen to Germans and Renault to the French. However, the arrangements should be held to only certain types of industry. You can't demand people to turn in the small ideas, like those for a type of special store of clothing, to these BIG arrangements. We need to designate the industries to start with and for now these are: insurance, banking, car industry, energy, communications, air industry ... (the rest like these).
10. Increased coursing of the unemployed is surely recommended. Not that it generates so much "aloofness", but rather the fact that firstly sparetime becomes far more interesting. Secondly, job opportunities increase. Thirdly, with a new job, with the new knowledge, they can provide good social effects and generate new insights that may improve the workplace if not the entire company itself. Fourthly, with a new job or not, the new knowledge may have good effects on mood and that the new job can very well arise merely from this new smile with more confidence. (Don't be petty, Labour Services!)
Result as best practice: toward or virtually 0 % unemployment.
Status now: most of the unemployment is to be blamed on crime, including corruption.
Watch up: As always, leadership is an art. One has to understand the requirements for leadeship, i.e., what it takes to generate high activity industrially, again against zero unemployment (also as greater degree of happiness/satisfaction).
This is written upon news of Euro-zone unemployment of 12,2 %, not acceptable.
To compare, USA: 7,5 %.
Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics .
Wikipedia number for USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate .
(I've played a significant part in Norway (outside criminal relations) for fighting unemployment for a number of years before leaving the Norwegian efforts more and more due to corruption/crime/indecent treatment of my person. Most messages going to the Norwegian Banks' Association.)
1. Weapons against unemployment: personal security (personal weapon, pistol, and other).
2. Increased security gives greater optimism and lesser corruption because people become less vulnerable.
3. Increased security gives by these two points a further increased initiative (toward industry).
4. That the people should exert pressure to make the Central Bank adjust its parameters to fit a kind of people's interest rate, one that enables moderate aggression toward investment and fighting unemployment.
5. The banks' views on investments and "come on, be part!"-mentality, also a kind of moderate lending aggression (on line with sportly aggression), possibly with a bank-to-bank competetive attitude to generate as much investments per company/corporation as possible.
6. The part that the financial network plays is a particularly active one, also by popularity inventive, possibly too, with extra support or government assurances or, indeed, "investor-insurances" by "private/public investments".
7. That the state-engagement is (pro-)active, that is supports the small profit/no profit enterprises not seen as attractive. That it also considers small losses enterprises.
8. Enterprises are "entertained" even if the work seems needlessly manual and ineffective, merely because it generates "better people tomorrow, also by the workers' kids".
9. Yes, believe it or not, the business arrangements are now more important than ever, reducing the so-called "free competition" significantly. So my recommendation is that a "social" business arrangement by singular, nationally/regionally loyal/patriot businesses and state(s) working together by the business network's organisation, fx. the French and German ones. What I'm talking about: something like Volkswagen to Germans and Renault to the French. However, the arrangements should be held to only certain types of industry. You can't demand people to turn in the small ideas, like those for a type of special store of clothing, to these BIG arrangements. We need to designate the industries to start with and for now these are: insurance, banking, car industry, energy, communications, air industry ... (the rest like these).
10. Increased coursing of the unemployed is surely recommended. Not that it generates so much "aloofness", but rather the fact that firstly sparetime becomes far more interesting. Secondly, job opportunities increase. Thirdly, with a new job, with the new knowledge, they can provide good social effects and generate new insights that may improve the workplace if not the entire company itself. Fourthly, with a new job or not, the new knowledge may have good effects on mood and that the new job can very well arise merely from this new smile with more confidence. (Don't be petty, Labour Services!)
Status now: most of the unemployment is to be blamed on crime, including corruption.
Watch up: As always, leadership is an art. One has to understand the requirements for leadeship, i.e., what it takes to generate high activity industrially, again against zero unemployment (also as greater degree of happiness/satisfaction).
This is written upon news of Euro-zone unemployment of 12,2 %, not acceptable.
To compare, USA: 7,5 %.
Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics .
Wikipedia number for USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate .
(I've played a significant part in Norway (outside criminal relations) for fighting unemployment for a number of years before leaving the Norwegian efforts more and more due to corruption/crime/indecent treatment of my person. Most messages going to the Norwegian Banks' Association.)
Friday, 7 June 2013
The Organisation of Buildings and Architecture + a little brewing...
The Architectural Planning of the World - City Development and More
Tip (for the Architects of Germany, fx.): much can be exploited and stream-lined (to reiterate an old idea): that some buildings are planned for "upgrade" for building complex-maintenance in terms of values and others for direct demolition. All of this can be stream-lined straight out from the Architects Association, allowing / "designating" the best architects for these projects way before the public ever get to see the real building to be built! Cool or what? Now that organisation and agreement take hold before the hype of (US-) Free Competition...!
Other note for Brewing, out of the casual:
Destillation-Beer-Brewing: Brewing one time as normal - "up", then brewing "down", boiling away the excess water from the beer, then "double-grade" beer with double-taste-contents. Also with the wines! Possibility for distilling the extracts in removing the excess water to preserve alcohol contents by "pour-back".
Brakspear to Budweiser to Munkholm (Alcohol-free) - Also Florida/USA "reduced" wines.
The brands are protected under Mövenpick Ice-Cream convention...
Tip (for the Architects of Germany, fx.): much can be exploited and stream-lined (to reiterate an old idea): that some buildings are planned for "upgrade" for building complex-maintenance in terms of values and others for direct demolition. All of this can be stream-lined straight out from the Architects Association, allowing / "designating" the best architects for these projects way before the public ever get to see the real building to be built! Cool or what? Now that organisation and agreement take hold before the hype of (US-) Free Competition...!
Other note for Brewing, out of the casual:
Destillation-Beer-Brewing: Brewing one time as normal - "up", then brewing "down", boiling away the excess water from the beer, then "double-grade" beer with double-taste-contents. Also with the wines! Possibility for distilling the extracts in removing the excess water to preserve alcohol contents by "pour-back".
Brakspear to Budweiser to Munkholm (Alcohol-free) - Also Florida/USA "reduced" wines.
The brands are protected under Mövenpick Ice-Cream convention...
Monday, 3 June 2013
On the Anti-Biotics - Some Public Education, at Least
First of all, I want it to be standard that when anti-biotics enters papers it is to hold to pieces of information, at least. These are "type of anti-biotic" and "brand", fx. Pfizer. Additionally, much or all technical information should also be included, if possible, from needle to batch-bag, to manual handling, to various suspicions of pollution sources for the medicine and so on.
Secondly, there are some worries about the quenching of MRSA, whether actually a weakness in the patient itself or the very "multi-resistent bacteria" itself. But, and with no excuse, all of these worries can be solved in laboratory using a type of pattern/gene-database and then building these outside the patients and see how the genes develop into the MRSA and what bacteria that precedes this course, if this kind of evidence is possible to back-trace by these gene-investigations.
The gene-investigations can then later be re-traced to patients who have died or who have contracted some kind of MRSA and consider any counter-measures, even down to the overdose anasthetics. I can't see why the patients in these cases should have the duty to endure a terminally ill condition that's painful.
My last thing to this is that all questions concerning anti-biotics are more or less solved or solvable and that only corrupt/idiotic med. doctors prevent the good medical practice, as always. In a sense, the erring/"erring" doctor's lethal interaction with a patient whether "in-door" or "out-door", has always been a danger.
PS: If anything here is questionable or outright wrong, I am as always on the watch to correct information in no time!
PS2: This comes in after I've score on "Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science" and "on underlying data-set problems for the HIV/AIDS theory and connected worries of science".
List of some Pharmaceutical Companies:
1 Johnson & Johnson
2 Pfizer
3 Roche
4 GlaxoSmithKline
5 Novartis
6 Sanofi
7 AstraZeneca
8 Abbott Laboratories
9 Merck & Co.
10 Bayer HealthCare
11 Eli Lilly
12 Bristol-Myers Squibb
Source for the list: Wikipedia.
2nd message:
The Antibiotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antibiotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics
A suggested priority list:
The Macrolides
Azithromycin Zithromax', Sumamed, Xithrone'
Clarithromycin Biaxin
Dirithromycin Dynabac (discontinued)
Erythromycin Erythocin', Erythroped'
Roxithromycin
Troleandomycin Tao (discontinued)
Telithromycin Ketek Pneumonia Visual Disturbance, Liver Toxicity.[4] (I.e., be careful with right dosage to the body, kids do have lower body weight.)
Cures:
Streptococcal infections, syphilis, upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, mycoplasmal infections, Lyme disease
Side effects:
Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (especially at higher doses)
Prolonged QT interval (especially erythromycin)
(Jaundice)
(inhibition of bacterial protein biosynthesis by binding reversibly to the subunit 50S of the bacterial ribosome, thereby inhibiting translocation of peptidyl tRNA.)
Rated lower:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-lactam_antibiotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalosporin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbapenem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptomycin
Not that I've suggested these special considerations of the contents of eggs to the effect of wanting to hurt people, but rather on par with the blatant effect of alcohol killing bacteria and viruses on the petri-dish.
Again, alcohol isn't to recommend here because "overdose" of alcohol kills you, unkown how much it takes to a "neutral" person.
As with penicillin, the killing of other bacteria has been a discovery, indicating "a slight possibility" to find natural ways to health and healthy body, like with these eggs.
Hearsay: that at one stage, it is a stimulant for growth and at another level, it is the antibiotics for staying healthy.
(I am no specialist in this field of pharmacy/medicine. Rather, I look for a type of strategy where natural ingredients like with air belong to the people and to be exploited as such as well.)
Secondly, there are some worries about the quenching of MRSA, whether actually a weakness in the patient itself or the very "multi-resistent bacteria" itself. But, and with no excuse, all of these worries can be solved in laboratory using a type of pattern/gene-database and then building these outside the patients and see how the genes develop into the MRSA and what bacteria that precedes this course, if this kind of evidence is possible to back-trace by these gene-investigations.
The gene-investigations can then later be re-traced to patients who have died or who have contracted some kind of MRSA and consider any counter-measures, even down to the overdose anasthetics. I can't see why the patients in these cases should have the duty to endure a terminally ill condition that's painful.
My last thing to this is that all questions concerning anti-biotics are more or less solved or solvable and that only corrupt/idiotic med. doctors prevent the good medical practice, as always. In a sense, the erring/"erring" doctor's lethal interaction with a patient whether "in-door" or "out-door", has always been a danger.
PS: If anything here is questionable or outright wrong, I am as always on the watch to correct information in no time!
PS2: This comes in after I've score on "Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science" and "on underlying data-set problems for the HIV/AIDS theory and connected worries of science".
List of some Pharmaceutical Companies:
1 Johnson & Johnson
2 Pfizer
3 Roche
4 GlaxoSmithKline
5 Novartis
6 Sanofi
7 AstraZeneca
8 Abbott Laboratories
9 Merck & Co.
10 Bayer HealthCare
11 Eli Lilly
12 Bristol-Myers Squibb
Source for the list: Wikipedia.
2nd message:
The Antibiotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antibiotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics
A suggested priority list:
The Macrolides
Azithromycin Zithromax', Sumamed, Xithrone'
Clarithromycin Biaxin
Dirithromycin Dynabac (discontinued)
Erythromycin Erythocin', Erythroped'
Roxithromycin
Troleandomycin Tao (discontinued)
Telithromycin Ketek Pneumonia Visual Disturbance, Liver Toxicity.[4] (I.e., be careful with right dosage to the body, kids do have lower body weight.)
Cures:
Streptococcal infections, syphilis, upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, mycoplasmal infections, Lyme disease
Side effects:
Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (especially at higher doses)
Prolonged QT interval (especially erythromycin)
(Jaundice)
(inhibition of bacterial protein biosynthesis by binding reversibly to the subunit 50S of the bacterial ribosome, thereby inhibiting translocation of peptidyl tRNA.)
Rated lower:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-lactam_antibiotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalosporin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbapenem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptomycin
Not that I've suggested these special considerations of the contents of eggs to the effect of wanting to hurt people, but rather on par with the blatant effect of alcohol killing bacteria and viruses on the petri-dish.
Again, alcohol isn't to recommend here because "overdose" of alcohol kills you, unkown how much it takes to a "neutral" person.
As with penicillin, the killing of other bacteria has been a discovery, indicating "a slight possibility" to find natural ways to health and healthy body, like with these eggs.
Hearsay: that at one stage, it is a stimulant for growth and at another level, it is the antibiotics for staying healthy.
(I am no specialist in this field of pharmacy/medicine. Rather, I look for a type of strategy where natural ingredients like with air belong to the people and to be exploited as such as well.)
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Coloristics is restored as science on par with linguistic science
First of all, when I write that "Coloristics is restored as science" per linguistic science, I intend to say: Coloristics is restored as science by the written description as account of (coloristics-) impression, much like telepathy, but that coloristics is much more personal and much more refined!!! Don't mess with it! I'm warning you!
You may want to check out:
Url: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coloristic
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coloristic
Well, well, the net says this and that, but Coloristics has a peculiar history, one more successful (now) than fx. Craniology, ref. Philosophy of Science.
Ref. also, the impressions of the German flag, by the 3 colours, being one (prime) example!
To science-"freaks" of CERN: No, ISOLDE is no alchemy! Alpha-radiation? Anybody?
You may want to check out:
Url: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coloristic
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coloristic
Well, well, the net says this and that, but Coloristics has a peculiar history, one more successful (now) than fx. Craniology, ref. Philosophy of Science.
Ref. also, the impressions of the German flag, by the 3 colours, being one (prime) example!
To science-"freaks" of CERN: No, ISOLDE is no alchemy! Alpha-radiation? Anybody?
Friday, 17 May 2013
The Making of the NDNID Paper - The NDNID Paper - 2 Ways, History and Work Approach
The Idea of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design as Defence to Religious Belief
Introduction.
This work comes into existence because I've been thinking about the requirements to a rational belief in religion. I've started, almost as Descartes has done it, to examine exactly why I believe in religion.
Clearly, there are the other aspects too, like Pascal's Wager, why God should exist or not, the appeal of God for being considered as real. I've also gone through, quite rigourously, the position of ethics, and morality with it, in the World and how it connects, possibly, with intelligence, well inspired by Kierkegaard.
We recall easily from Kierkegaard, from secondary literature, that his system of text contains, by crude description, a kind of evolving levels, that can be named aesthetics, ethics, and religion.
We have also been supported well by other authors too, like Leibniz, Aquinas, Conway, and Plotinus, of whom all drives us toward a fairly hard belief in both ethics and health, in aspiring to being God's miracle on the planet Earth, each and every one of us, God-believers, first and foremost, all religions, I guess now, based on the wiser aspects of information society and the fact that laws need refinement, redefining in some sense, every religion as "caring for the religious spirit in which it has been written".
This has gone on for many years now, as I can recall, all the way from 16, seriously speaking.
The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
UD (universe of discourse): Everything
K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
G: God proposition
I: Important proposition
P: Propositions in general
E: Objective Ethics propositions
M: Meaning propositions
B: have Belief propositions in
D: Propositions of definition of God
C: Complete Knowledge propositions
(1)
1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).
(2)
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
2. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".
(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
3. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.
(3)
1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.
(4)
1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)
Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.
Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!
It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.
One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.
This should be in line with Kripke-modality as it's explained in his Naming and Necessity.
But the best one can do, IMO, is ◊(∃x)(G), possibly there's an existing God! I guess, all we believers are waiting for "Heaven".
Pacal's Wager.
The worry of the agnostics.
The value of defence and not proof.
The limitations to science and scientific influence.
The definition of God in relation to science and the prospects of science.
The classical notions by relations of science to religions.
Main Part I - The Argument.
[also the 5 arguments by logical structures and the rest, 4+1 combined]
Main Part II - The Reasoning.
Notes: [using two sections, the usage of "Notes" and "References", not that it matters, but I think it yields stiffness as well as flexibility.]
Notes.
As common in logics, square brackets are put in for separating from the round brackets and for being correct on the "primary connective" which is a formal requirement in Logics. Square brackets also make for better pedagogics, that only using the round brackets has a confusing capacity.
I've "imported" an addition from the Philosophy Now forum that has been written there 15. Jan. 2011.
References.
Kripke - the distinction between necessary and possible.
[+ the ones below]
Middle part to belong to one of the Main Section 2 probably:
Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper):
Work notes added by these, just for some kind of notice:
Note1: Important! This is work in progress. No objection to the style here presented is tolerated or accepted on any (imagined) professional ground whatsoever! Formatting is thus not ready yet for the CSM-consistency.
Yes, the concepts and names are here strewn, you can begin to look them up yourself as well as the idiots can leave the books to themselves and "get to the objects" of Heidegger and more...! It would have said: "Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper), while in "Hurwegen", the improper Norway under Insect-Jens, the PM also:", but not like that here.
The considerations for NDNID:
S. Kierkegaard
- some of the best considerations for a definite God
Aquinas
- almost unmistakenly /the/ reference for a best/most fundamental sense for God, along with Kierkegaard, the unbeatable brothers of Religious Philosophy for the believers!
Pascal's Wager (God or not God)
- too weak. that considering God would demand more thought than only "God or not God"
Kripke's paper "Naming and Necessity"
- thorough studies of this text have been crucial, in my head, to achieving the new notion of NDNID
The Dogmatic Debate, the Fideists and the Theists, the dogmas necessary to believe in God, by the classical "Church notions"
- that I have kept a keen eye to the "camp of positions" debates to these above notions, that they have had their very special conceptions for God.
St. Anselm
- The first argument of the modal kind to consider, usually also as reference for the others to follow, by description also.
Alving Plantinga's use of 5-S modality sentence, that possible, possible, possible yields "Necessarily God" when I have in fact never believed in "Necessary God" because the idea of God has seemed "too massive, too "magical", too far outside our sense and proof of reality, also by science".
- therefore, I've caught a type of description by Kierkegaard and Aquinas as the best before realizing that "possible God" would make it happen under the "best and greatest" pro-God with adding the 4 elements (by movie-making also, you may say movie-making studies) toward a seriously possible God!
This text contains the most of the conception for my 4 elements of possible-God! Yes, this has been a work after the profound studies. I have gotten anywhere near it, NDNID, without the input of crucial intellectual matters, and then I have skipped many light-weight "educators"!
2013-03-07.
2013-05-17.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
Objection to the International Blur of Power - The UN Sky
The former Interpol discussion has made it clear that even Interpol has had a need "to have its legs into one by one nation" because the instructions and international police work simply has become too messy formerly, by history record. Its on this note of wisdom that I object to bulging idiot governance of UN that speaks against the serious political science and I advice the (financial) accounts of the UN to follow the accountable patters still, that UN represents international agreement and national accountability and that indirect-indirect delegation of power from the nations is one that doesn't deal exactly more power than that, making it necessary to negotiate the agreements with the respective national assemblies to establish it.
So instead of "flashing various (agent) cards", of diplomatic status too, of authority and being by very special agant (Mulder) then rather the extra attention toward certain problems like in this case a list of crimes to cover where money, yes, that the money goes to Interpol/Europol/FBI. This must be the objective answer. UN isn't some blurred political power in the sky and never will be either (if we bother to discipline the organisation properly, holding consciousness to it every year).
Keyword: reporting (accurate), that's right, the report, one d*mn job duty, the reporting.
UN: reporting (accurate), international agreement and discussion over international matters (toward agreement/making explicit notes).
(This is for public education if nothing else.)
Monday, 6 May 2013
The Ecology Points - By Applied Ethics, Most Importantly and Further...
Combatting the Overpopulation
Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.
I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.
(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)
I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!
Re-Issuing, the CO2 Problem
In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)
(I'll use this blog posting to highlight a very important ethics/applied ethics matter, one that seems to move slowly in terms of (acting/effectuating/legislative) politics...)
Also remarks to brilliant writers, activists, Greenpeace (who should pick up on /seriousness/), World Wildlife Fund, IPCC, the former Environmentalist movement, people who support Deep Ecology and other people who move the these matters into scope and place.
PS: Overpopulation is now centered on the most because I see it as /the/ most important ecological issue today.
Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.
I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.
(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)
I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!
Re-Issuing, the CO2 Problem
In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)
(I'll use this blog posting to highlight a very important ethics/applied ethics matter, one that seems to move slowly in terms of (acting/effectuating/legislative) politics...)
Also remarks to brilliant writers, activists, Greenpeace (who should pick up on /seriousness/), World Wildlife Fund, IPCC, the former Environmentalist movement, people who support Deep Ecology and other people who move the these matters into scope and place.
PS: Overpopulation is now centered on the most because I see it as /the/ most important ecological issue today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)