Littlewood's Law

Theoretical probability of event A occurring = (number of favorable outcomes) ÷ (total number of possible outcomes)

In the case of a coin:

Favorable outcomes for a heads = 1 (there's only 1 head)

Total number of outcomes = 2 (head and tail)

So, theoretical probability of a head = 1 ÷ 2 = 50%

You are problematic in three areas. You assume miracles (not just statistically unlikely events, but a disruption of the natural order) actually have occurred. You commit the gambler's fallacy by saying we are do for events to happen if we assume so statistical occurrence of miracles. The entire argument you present is effectively a diversion: the line of reasoning you argue for does not even apply in the case of miracles. Even if we believe miracles have occurred, we have no reason to believe they occur again at all, especially with any frequency. — Chany

Firstly I'm happy that you more or less agree with me regarding the nature of the gambler's fallacy - that it isn't fallacious over large observational data showing biased data points.

Actually there's a philosopher or mathematician (i forgot his name) who's proven mathematically that miracles are quite commonplace events. Of course his main thrust was that for that reason alone we needn't look for a supernatural explanation for miracles. So, I don't quite understand what you mean by ''You assume miracles (not just statistically unlikely events, but a disruption of the natural order) actually have occurred'' and ''You commit the gambler's fallacy by saying we are do for events to happen if we assume so statistical occurrence of miracles.''

You seem to be assigning a probability value of zero to miracles and that basically means certainty that such events can NEVER occur. However the problem of induction should coax/coerce you to deny yourself such privileges. Miracles do have a non-zero probability somewhere between 0 and 1. Say you assign it a value of 1 in a million (1/1,000,000). Suppose an event occurs every second. In 1 minute you have 60 events. In 1 hour you have 60×60 events. In one day you have 60×60×24 events. In one month you have 60×60×24×30 events. In 1 year you have 60×60×24×30×12 events (31,104,000 exactly). That means in 1 year we should be experiencing at least 31 miraculous events [(1/1,000,000) × 31,104,000]. You could of course assign any probability to miracles 1 in a billion or 1 in a trillion; it doesn't matter because the sheer volume of events occurring in the universe will mean that miracles are actualized. The above argument was offered by the philosopher/mathematician whose name I forgot.

Maybe I'm wrong in the details but I'm quite sure he performed some miracles.

a little dissonance can add a great deal--as many a composer has found. — Bitter Crank

But the higher-lower brain dissonance I refer to is not ''little''. It's reasonable to expect a certain level of disharmony - nothing's perfect.

In the case of our brains the disharmony is fundamental. Inconsistencies arising in the lower brain directly threaten the very essence of our higher brains - rationality.

Also take note, in this discussion we're using the higher brain to evaluate the issue. So, it's slightly unfair. Unfortunately, the lower brain cannot be consciously turned on and so we're left with a lop-sided analysis of the matter. Perhaps, frustrated by my dogged insistence, I may be able to shock you into uttering an expletive and we'd know what the lower brain thinks of the higher brain:D

You are only justified in thinking the coin is PROBABLY loaded. As you know, there is no such thing as a finite sequence of tosses incompatible with either fairness or bias. — tom

So, in simple terms:

If you get a series of heads then the coin is probably loaded

In other words:

If the coin is fair then we shouldn't get a series of heads

As the series of heads increases in number the probability the coin is biased increases or if the coin is fair then we should expect a tails.

The gambler's fallacy is not completely fallacious.

A miraculous event is due in earth's history.

I understand your holistic POV. Each element of the whole has equal weight and there's nothing such as most/least important as the whole depends on optimal functioning of all its parts. From that standpoint you dismiss all inquiry into my concerns re higher brain, lower brain.

I'm sure you agree that for the proper functioning of the whole person it is necessary for the parts to function in harmony with each other. Like music each instrument must interact with the others to form a harmonious whole that we hear as a beautiful piece. If there's the slightest dissonance among the instruments what emerges is cacophony/noise. Coming to the issue of our minds (keeping the music analogy in mind) we have a fundamental problem - our higher brain is not in accord with our lower brain. The musical equivalent regarding the situation of mind is NOISE.

Do you still think there's no need for concern?

You are analyzing an observed / remembered reaction to a sudden, intense traumatic event in the leisurely comfort of our philosophy forum and over-thinking it. — Bitter Crank

If you were to see a state-of-the-art skyscraper in a city and slums right next to it wouldn't you be, at least, mildly surprised?

And here we are in the modern age, a grand edifice, a marvel of rationality, built by our so-called ''higher brain'' only to realize that lurking deep within is the ''lower brain'' - confused, self-contradictory and irrational. No cause for concern?

I have no idea what you're talking about

So, you see no suspicious activity in all of this?

Well, coming at the issue from another angle, I think it's safe to assume that we're using our higher brains in this discussion. I presume logic and rationality are in play here - in a sense the higher brain is analyzing the situation (lower brain). Also assuming here that the higher brain doesn't tolerate contradictions - they're impossibles in the realm of logic and are anathema to any ''worthwhile'' mental pursuit. In a sense all of philosophical history has been an attempt to remove contradictions from all discourse and polishing ideas to crystal clarity (exaggerated?).

If you agree with me upto this point and you hold our higher brains to be sole purveyors/custodians of truth then we have a serious problem because sitting in the backyard (lower brains) is a world of contradictions/contraries/inconsistencies.

Thanks for the posts.

I have a fair grasp of what you're saying. Your posts explain the process of how we respond to extremely stressful events. However, I find it puzzling why you don't find anything interesting in the content (contradictions) of the stress-induced reactions.

At the risk of boring you let me repeat myself. Zen Buddhism is especially famous for Koans which are deliberately shock-inducing e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping? The same thing may be said of other mystical traditions in various religions. All this, of course, indicating that the real truth is hidden somewhere in the lower? brain.

Does this not merit a careful investigation?

A government is both great and sad. It is great because it overcomes the weaknesses of the individual and embodies our lofty aspirations. It is sad because it build itself on the inability of societies to function in harmony without some degree of coercion/authority.

Hence, the focus of a government should be self-destruction so as to achieve true and everlasting harmony among peoples of all castes and creeds.

Thanks for your reply. Seeing it from your's and apokrisis' view it would be even stranger to hear emotionally neutral words when in shock.

However, I still have certain doubts about the explanation provided.

Are we sure that this is the work of our lower brains? I may be wrong but certain mystical traditions like Zen Buddhism are all about shocking you into realization of truth - whatever that is. Such practices seem to imply that real truth is to be found in the lower brain as opposed to our higher brains. So it is possible that what you call lower brain could actually be the higher brain. This goes to renew my curiosity in the contradictory nature of our lower (higher?) brains.

Any thoughts?

It's a principle which asserts that If one ought to act then it is necessary that one can.

In other words if one can't act then it's not necessary that one ought to act

In morality or any other anthropocentric action it is not possible to remove the ''self'' from the morality (we can't). Therefore it is not necessary to remove it (there is no ought) from the consideration at hand. In other words since the ''self'' can't be eliminated from the equation it has no/diminished relevance in tye matter.

It's no big deal. We do it all the time e.g. when grow a rose bush in your garden we can't do it without thorns. So, the thorns lose their relevance as far as the beauty of the plant is concerned.

I don't know. Sorry.

So, it's just normal brain function in the sense that the lowerbrain reacts without involvement of the higher? brain.

However, of the many possible responses - we could cry out, groan, moan (we do that too), etc. - why is there, among these expletives, logical contradictions? In other words, instead of simply crying out ''ah'' or ''oh'' or ''fuck'' or ''shit'' why do we have in our reaction-bank contradictions/contraries? It appears to me that the lower brain is not in harmony with the higher brain at a fundamental level.

I think tolerance is just an instantiation of the golden rule - do unto others as you'd like others to do unto you.

Also in this modern age of globalization there's no room for intolerance. Everyone's connected in one way or another - we all depend on each other if civilization is to survive.

That is just such a dreadful mashup of poorly formed ideas that it's not worth responding to. — Wayfarer

You're avoiding the issue. All you have to do is show me how divine purpose does not lead us to the conclusion that we're but means to achieve god's objectives (ends).

Civilization 4

Sniper 3

because 'having a purpose' is not the same as 'being used for a purpose'. — Wayfarer

I beg to differ because a couple of steps behind, hidden from view (thus unseen), from the idea of purpose of life lies our dissatisfaction with subjective purpose (otherwise why all the fuss?). We seek an objective purpose and most people (given that religion is still selling like hot cakes) believe in a divine purpose in their lives. God, for all its worth, provides us with an objective purpose. This divine purpose is not ours but god's and we're simply a means to achieve it.

Doesn't it then follow, given the Kantian maxim, that we're used as instruments to achieve this divine purpose. And isn't this bad on Kantian grounds?

Is a white hole a mathematical necessity? Does the math suggest its existence?

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

A priori it makes sense. A posteriori it doesn't.

Would the absence of a universal system or morals and meaning make life absurd? — intrapersona

This is a complex question. You've clubbed two different ideas (morality and meaning) in one question. This notwithstanding I think we can still answer the question in a meaningful way.

When people talk about meaning of life they're usually looking for an objective purpose in their lives. This quest has proven itself to be futile, spawning the philosophy of the absurd.

Morality is the science and art of creating and sustaining a harmonious social organization. There are different strains of moral philosophy. The one I find relevant to your question is Kantian(?not sure). Kant expressly states that persons are ends in themselves and should never be used as means to an end. In other words persons shouldn't be used as instruments to achieve a desired goal.

If you agree with me so far then you should feel the tension of an imminent inconsistency in such a worldview. On one hand we desire meaning, which is another way of asking ''to what ends do our lives serve as means?'' And on the other hand a subset of morality (Kant) categorically states that a person should never be used as a means to an end.

Thus, inevitably, either we have a purpose or we don't.
If we have purpose then Kantian morality shows that to be bad.
If we have no purpose then life is absurd.

So, either we're bad or life is absurd. Make your choice.

Of course it does, that is if you want to remain consistent. — Harry Hindu

Can you specify where I'm inconsistent.

I hope our descendants keep striving after virt — anonymous66

Looking at the way things are turning out (codification of our lofty ideals in things from simple guide books to constitutions) I believe too that we're on the right track to such a future.

A society is an extension of the ego. The one ''i' gets absorbed into the collective ''we''. Ironically these ''we's'' display characteristics of the ''i'' e.g. self-preservation. Of course, that takes us back to square one as different groups of ''we's'' conduct themselves as ''i's'', albeit at a different level.

Perhaps society forms as a means of cashing in on opportunities and facing threats efficiently and successfully. For the moment, despite globalization, there are many ''we's''/groups (countries, nations, counties, villages, etc.). Hence conflict prevails at so many different levels.

Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. aren't biological in nature either, but they are still natural. You are making a distinction that isn't really there. New non-biological elements are made naturally inside stars. How is that different from the things that humans make? As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing. — Harry Hindu

Yes, volcanoes, quakes, tornadoes, etc. are natural. So, what? That doesn't imply we shouldn't classify dangers to the environment into the categories man-made and natural.

Knowing that human activity damages the environment is owning up to one's mistakes. It's the first step in problem solving. It reveals our role in the preservation/destruction of the planet's biosphere.

It's like psychopathy. It is ultimately human nature BUT it needs to be given a category of its own to distinguish it in the vast and complex world of human nature.

Isn't everything a self serving act? can you actually do something not out of self interest? — MonfortS26

Do you mean to dismiss things like altruism, charity, kindness, love etc. as ultimately self-serving?

If you are then I take issue with that. The concept of ought-can must be familiar to you. If a person ought to perform an act then it must be that s/he can perform the act. Conversely, if you're incapable of doing something then it absolves the person from responsibility to do that particular thing.

Since the self can never be extracted from the moral equation or any other human-centric activity, objections to altruism and other ''good'' acts on that ground is moot.

We must hold in great respect acts/thoughts of kindness and good because they demonstrably benefit others, self-serving notwithstanding.

but in the end, i believe that they're just languages used to talk about the same thing. — Aucellus

Kinda depends on the angle of attack - the perspective chosen. To add there's the possibility that all of what we call ''knowledge'' may actually be just one side of the dice. There could be many different sides to the story.

You seem to be saying that climate change is natural because human beings are, well, natural and that all this fuss about man-made climate change is barking up the wrong tree.

However vehicles, factories, nuclear powerplants, etc. are not in any form of biological relationship with the ecosystem. There is not even a hint of it. The relationship (if you can call it that) between man-made artefacts and nature is a one-way street and it's jammed with garbage trucks loading tons of toxic pollutants.

Therefore, there's a significant difference between man-made artefacts and natural things. This difference has major consequences for the enviroment.

With the placebo effect, there is a third element (the inert substance) which stands in for a drug which is meant to have an effect regardless of the subject's belief — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not entirely accurate. Placebo-effects depend on the subject believing s/he is given medication for his/her ailment.

If animal minds don't exist, then we didn't actually come out on top. If animal minds are not real, we did not win a contest against all odds. — jdh

This is bizarre logic. I would've thought if animals mind don't exist then we did win the lottery - having won the prize of consciousness. Conversely, if animal minds did exist then we're no better of than animals - making humans equivalent to say, a dog or fish - we didn't win.

Time itself has no speed. — hypericin

Speed of time makes sense to me.

Firstly, we have the subjective perception of time you mentioned - when we're bored time passes slowly while time speeds up when we're having fun. If I were to offer an explanation it would be that our biological clock speeds up or slows down as the case may be, resulting in the feeling of time speeding up or slowing down. However, this is subjective in the sense that it has to do with perception rather than time actually changing speed.

Secondly, my rudimentary understanding of the theory of relativity informs me that travelling at high velocities makes time slow down. However, I don't know if we can increase the speed of time in an objective manner. What is slower than just sitting in one place?

Speed of time makes both intuitive and scientific sense.

Such a radical change in the speed of time would be both irrelevant and undetectable. — hypericin

Indeed if speed of time changes universally and proportionately then it wouldn't be noticeable; therefore it's inconsequential. However, if the speed of time is local and disproportionate then it is relevant - think of the twins paradox (relativity).

I don't know if identity can be said to be something fixed or absolute. — Wayfarer

So, if identity is not fixed why does our intuition inform us to the contrary? The words ''same'', ''identical'' are evidence that there's a sense of unchanging identity in our minds. Do you think this intuition is mistaken?

It is something that can be maintained, while still changing over time — Wayfarer

This is self-contradictory is it not? How can change maintain anything? I have a vague conception of what you want to get at but it's still unclear to me.

Climate change is nothing new for planet earth. From what I've read the earth has had a number of climate change events before (ice ages, supervolcanoes, asteroid hits, etc).

The only difference between the expected climate change of this time is faster than those in the past. This makes it difficult for life to adapt since it needs generations up on generations to make a successful adaptation to climate change.

Humans are affecting the environment - there's little doubt about that. However, I'm more worried about the speed of the change than the change per se.

It doesn't much matter who shat on the carpet, it needs cleaning up. — unenlightened

I think it does matter. The global ecosystem is everyone's responsibility. Those who damage the ecosystem should be held accountable and must play a greater role in clean-up and preservation.

Without some form of deterrent policy I don't think things will work out well for nature. The best way to go about it is a carrot and stick policy. Incentive is equally important as penalty.

I designated 'Ship of Theseus' as a type, rather than as an individual instance - and so whether there is one, or more than one, of the Ship, is no longer problematical — Wayfarer

I fear ''type'' is a weasel word here. It is more a matter of convenience (to eliminate the paradox) than any real progress to a solution.

Following your line of reasoning there would be no individual identity at all. Everything would simply be a ''type''.

So, according to you (process metaphysics) ships A and B are both ''the ship of Theseus''. I may have misunderstood but the reason you say why this is so is that both ships are part of the same process (on the same worldline) - therefore indistinguishable. Am I right?

If so, consider a pregnant woman and her fetus. They're both part of the same process/worldline. Therefore, according to process metaphysics, they should both be the same person. Yet, we consider the mother and child to be two different persons. What gives here?

My example seems to have diverted you away from the main topic. I'll accept that there's a significant difference between a person and an object.

However your stand on the ship of Theseus paradox is still unclear to me. Kindly share your thoughts on the matter.

It seems to me there is this fairy tale that we actually have power as individuals in America. — MonfortS26

The ''we'', the many, weilds power. Paradoxically, the ''we'' is simply a collection of the abject weaklings ''i''.

Why not just live a self indulgent life? — MonfortS26

Read above.

Why do you think it's not a matter of convention — Metaphysician Undercover

As oxymorinic as it sounds it could be a case of reason-based convention, just not arbitrary convention.

The point being that if the paradox has any worth i is the exposure of our poor understanding of identity.