And an essentially fitness-oriented mindset in one sense highlights our ability to move our body. But to look to biology to explain fitness fads would be to look in the wrong direction, right? Ok, that's my last effort on this anyway. — Baden

By the way it tends to be in developed countries with the smallest families that jogging is most popular and undeveloped ones with the largest ones that's it's least popular. So, there's another social pretzel for you to transform into an evolutionary donut — Baden

Do you or do you not believe the Darwinian Theory of Evolution? If you don't then I have nothing to say but if you do then it follows that every trait that we possess must've been those selected for by environmental pressure and I can think of no greater force on our evolutionary development other than the need to avoid predators and the need for food.

Of course. Although difference can also be attractive, as in viva la difference.

Racism therefore has to have causes other than difference and our ability to perceive difference. — frank

I think it's a widely held belief that diversity in a gene pool is healthy; if we're all identical, a single disease could wipe us all out. Imagine an animal that feeds exclusively on bamboo; the extinction of bamboos would then mean the animal too would disappear. This outlook is well-supported by the ecological principle of maintaining diversity in ecosystems - it's a much more robust arrangement for living systems that are under constant pressure from the environment.

The same benefit of enhanced survivability may apply to the diverse races of homo sapiens; unfortunately, all races seem to share the same disease susceptibility barring some like skin cancer which occurs more frequently in white people.



In my humble opinion, kin selection would be meaningless without some degree of homogeneity in the community an individual belongs to and some heterogeneity to contrast that against.

Because the Nazi 'criteria' were not phenotypic you fucking retard. — StreetlightX

You seem to be very knowledgable on the issue but I think you overlooked an important American hero, the great Athlete Jessie Owens (1930 -1980). The following is a passage from the wiki entry on Jesse Owens, and his story is testament to the fact that racism is, to a large degree if not completely, based on phenotype.

He was the most successful athlete at the Games and, as a black man, was credited with "single-handedly crushing Hitler's myth of Aryan supremacy", although he "wasn't invited to the White House to shake hands with the President, either" — Wikipedia

Do you suppose Hitler, and therefore Nazis, thought Aryans were superior based on anything other than phenotype? You yourself recommended fdrake's video to me; the message in the video is if we use the criterion of genotype there is no way we can justify a any subdivision in the genotype continuum on rational grounds. In other words, in a biological, scientific sense, since genotype is useless for the race concept, it follows that race, to exist as a meaningful concept, must be phenotype-based.

The meaning attached to race can contain non-phenotypic characteristics. Look to context. — frank

Read my reply to StreetlightX.

But if you want to continue to do so, I suggest the rest of us bow out now and just let you. — Baden

I'm looking for a cause for racism and it seems quite obvious doesn't it to look in the direction what an essentially discriminatory mindset, racism, points towards - differences and our capacity to perceive them.

You're actually so fucking stupid. Fuck. You think the Germans murdered the Jews because they didn't look like them? Based on 'phenotype'? Fuck you're an idiot. Just fuck off. — StreetlightX

Phenotype includes a lot of things other than what is obvious such as color of the skin, etc.; phenotype includes the color of your hair, the shape of your nose, your height, etc. and somehow the Jews couldn't fulfill the Nazi criteria for being classified as Aryan.

Look, here's an analogous argument to the OP: "Without the sun, there would be no people. With no people, there would be no racism. Therefore, the sun is the root of racism".

Its that fucking stupid. — StreetlightX

Strawman!
:lol: It's not that stupid. You ignore the fact that the domain of the necessary condition of the ability to see differences is limited to humans and what constitutes being human. I make no claims about anything beyond humanity.

If racism prevention is the goal, people could be encouraged to be aware of how they feel about differences. Give space to feeling uncomfortable.

Not realizing that the discomfort is coming from an aesthetic clash can feed scapegoating and other causes of racism. — frank

Differences in phenotype - physical appearance - seems to be key to racism. I maybe wrong but don't racists compare some races to monkeys and apes in order to show their superiority and the inferiority of the other races? I reckon that in the remote past, when we were still hunter-gatherers, monkeys and apes were tough competition; after all they are either more agile or physically stronger. :joke:

I'm going to keep repeating this until it seeps into your head: Racism is premised on differences deemed signifiant and not difference simpliciter. The 'deeming' is not biological but social and political. — StreetlightX

I get what you mean. It's not just a question of whether differences exist or not. It's also about whether people deem the difference to be, as you said, significant. I fully agree with this and fdrake's video post clearly demonstrates that race is an arbitrary concept with the caveat that it only looks like that based on genotype and not phenotype. The video clearly reveals the basis of racism as based on phenotype (external, physical appearance) and then demonstrates that these physical differences don't have a counterpart in genotype based on which all races are more similar than different. Clearly, racism is not a socio-political phenomenon as you claim: I've never heard a racist ask for social status or political affiliation before they start being racist.

I'd advise you to look at the video that fdrake posted. You're writing on things you seem quite ignorant about and you ought to inform yourself before speaking further. — StreetlightX

Ergo: What StreetlightX said ... — 180 Proof

I watched video. @fdrake posted, Many thanks to him. The author basically claims that the concept of race is arbitrary and so lacks a sound rational basis. The author makes a good argument by showing that human genotype can be understood as a genotype continuum, and possesses as many points where a division can be made as one fancies; this makes race an arbitrary concept. Ergo, if we must analyze race biologically genetically, then there's no clear point on the genotype continuum where a logically valid line for race can be drawn. Good argument.

However, what I've tried to do is explain the cause of racism, which I still think is grounded in our well-honed ability to see differences. I'm not claiming in any way that racism is validated by biology which the video is opposed to and I fully agree on that. The very notion of trying to explain that race is a biologically empty categorization depends on revealing sameness between peoples, as the author of the video has attempted using genetics, which vindicates my position that racism is based on seeing differences and the ability to see differences is a necessary survival skill, subject to selection pressure and thus likely to be highly developed and dominantly expressed in us, resulting in our propensity to discriminate against what doesn't look like us.

You're not offering shit. Racism is premised on differences deemed signifiant and not difference simpliciter. The 'deeming' is not biological but social and political. — StreetlightX

Splitting the difference, huh? That's "mighty white" of you, Fool; it's patently circular, however, by your own admission of "offering a biological explanation for it" (re: "racism" - which consists in reducing members of a 'designated Out-Group' to their biology (e.g. skin, hair or eye color 'different' from that of members of the In-Group)). Res ipsa loquitur, kemosabe ... :meh: — 180 Proof

StreetlightX and 180 Proof have a dekko at what Baden wrote below. 180 Proof, you understood the meaning because you replied with :lol: :up:

Thanks Baden & StreetlightX.

You're not identifying the roots of racism or offering any explanation for it. You're only identifying some basic biological faculties that serve as necessary but insufficient conditions for it. It's like trying to explain the popularity of jogging by pointing out that people have legs. — Baden

To say the very least, I've identified a necessary condition for racism - the ability to see differences.
If I remember my logic correctly, causes are classified as sufficient, necessary, sufficient & necessary, proximate, remote and contributory. Logic dictates that if one wants to produce an effect, one is advised to look for sufficient causes and if one wants to prevent/stop an effect, it's better to remove necessary causes. Ergo if we want to stop/prevent racism we should look for a necessary condition and remove it from society and we've come to an agreement, thanks to Baden, that the ability to see differences is most definitely a necessary cause for racism. Therefore, we've established, as a necessary condition and ergo a good place to begin racism prevention, the ability to see differences as the root of racism.

There is an issue with this "strategy" to prevent racism because the ability to see differences is necessary, along with the ability to see similarities which itself is necessary to make sense of the world - categorization/classification of objects, an essential for understanding our world, rely on similarities and differences. So, eliminating the ability to see differences is undesirable.

Here I'd like to refer you back to what I said about how the ability to see differences is linked to prey or predator which evokes a sense of right/dominion over or feelings of dread respectively. It's this automatic, subconscious connection we make between differences and a right to dominate over or perceive as a threat that is both a necessary & sufficient condition for racism. Tackling this problem is much more reasonable than trying to completely eliminate the ability to see differences which I've shown is necessary for other critical aspects of living, not to mention escaping predators and capturing prey.

One more thing...I don't understand how racism is political and/social. Europe before the slave trade had social and political divisions but these surely can't be termed as racism. Racism is about race and race is based, not on politics or social structure, but on biological differences.

Hey, this is an age-old problem with men. Throughout the ages, we've used our wankolos when we ought to have used our heads.

Same effect. — god must be atheist

:rofl:

What bothers me most is better conveyed as a story. Suppose there are two friends, A and B on the integer number line. If A says to B, "let's travel together from zero and go right of zero and when we reach the largest number we'll talk". Do you think A and B will ever talk? No, since the positive integers are infinite they'll never reach the largest number.

Suppose B suggests to A that instead of going in the positive direction they should go left, in the negative direction and as and when they reach the smallest number they should talk to each other. Given this new scenario will A and B ever speak? No, for the simple reason that the negative integers are infinite.

Imagine now that A tells B that they should go left, along the negative numbers and once they reach the smallest negative integer they should turn back towards zero and when they return to their starting point, zero they'll have a conversaton. Will A and B manage to talk to each other? No, since they would fail to get to the smallest negative integer; after all negative integers go on to infinity. In very simple terms A and B would fail to reach the starting point for their return journey to zero. My question is that if there is no starting point in negative infinity how can any other point on the number line be reached? If the past is infinite, then time has no beginning. If time has no beginning how can any point in the temporal sequence be attained? Viewed differently, any specific point in time can be considered an end with a point in the past as the beginning. If there is no beginning then there can be no end. Yet, here we are in the early months of 2020. Clearly time must have a beginning.

Read what I said again. None of what you said responds to it. Anyone who naturalizes racism can fuck right off, including you. Your two-bit line of reasoning - which unjustifiably and erroneously jumps from the mere necessity of recognizing difference to making racism a 'primitive instinct' - is employed by racists everywhere to justify their utter bullshit. This thread is fucking trash. Use your goddman head. — StreetlightX

I'm not trying to justify or naturalize racism; all I'm offering here is a biological explanation for it. The keystone premise is that all conflict originates in a perceived difference; surely you know that. You're not a racist as is obvious but to oppose racism one must demand equality of the races and what is equality but a cry for recognition of sameness of peoples and that the differences that divide us should be ignored. All I did was pick up the thread from there and explore the territory.

Maybe the dung that fertilizes Racism's growth but not "the root". Biologizing the 'theory & practice' of biologizing - reduction of acculturation to bare biology - is vapidly circular, Fool.

Perhaps, an anthropological inquiry at the level of political-economy (or approximately thereabouts) is the proper spade for digging up roots that are not nearly as deep as they entangle - strangle (i.e. incriminate) - us as we dig. Consider: Classism ... Filthy lucre ... Cui bono? :chin: — 180 Proof

It maybe vapid but it isn't circular. Racism is, at its core, difference-based and discerning dissimilarities is clearly an essential ability for survival. Putting two and two together I trace racism's origins to the ability of our ancestors to notice that something's not quite right with the grass - it resembles ordinary grass but it isn't; actually it's crouching tiger or it's a plump deer.

Politics and economics, although relevant to how racism took shape in history - slavery, rights, etc. - don't explain its origins which is quite clearly based on biology which then spread out into politics and economics.

"Some propositions are true about the physical universe" is undefined. — alcontali

How on Earth did you infer that?

My argument is watertight.

1. Assume A = All propositions are false, is true
2.. From 1, A itself, being a proposition, is false
3. So we have A & ~A, a contradiction
So,
4. A is false
5. If A is false, its contradictory, B = some propositions are not false = some propositions are true, is true
So,
6. I know that Some propositions are true with absolute certainty.

The difficulty lies in discovering these propositions whatever they are. Logic would be a necessity but the premises would be a point of contention; it seems that any body of knowledge (collection of true propositions) will be ultimately axiomatic in character; the other less desirable options being circularity or infinite regress. The question is whether it's possible to find all true propositions with the one we know with absolutely certainty viz. B = some propositions are true, and applying correct principles of logic to it. B would become the one and only one axiom of the system.

Do you think this'll work?

It seems a good method of discovering certain truths is to copy the style of my original argument which is to make it self-referential and self-refuting which allows us to infer their negation.

For instance, begin with C = everything changes. If so, the meaning of C changes and that would be N = some things don't change. N contradicts C, by which we can infer the negation of C and get N = some things don't change.

Similarly, if we say M = everything has mass, then, since M applies to itself, we discover that meaning, being immaterial, is massless, and so M is false or L = somethings don't have mass, is true.

The technique is to construct a universal statement that's self-referential and self-refuting by which we can infer the contradictory particular statement.

What does 'true' mean in this context? What makes you so certain that the statement is 'true'? — A Seagull

If there's a flaw in my reasoning you're referring to then I didn't get it. For the discussion I think the correspondence theory of truth is adequate and also that whatever proposition is claimed to be true needs a sound deductive argument to back it.

I set out to do something very similar to this. I start out with rejecting two positions that I call fideism and nihilism, the latter of which I take to mean roughly the same thing as saying nothing is true. And the former is something you're probably just taking for granted here: you can't just prove something by assertion. Between the two of those, you get the view that something or another is true, but no claim about what it is can just be taken for true. The result is that everything must be taken as possibly true until we can show that it is false. You can think of this as taking the infinite disjunction of all propositions (A or B or C or D or ...) and then ruling out some of them bit by bit to narrow in on a smaller and smaller disjunction of possibilities. But of course, whittling down an infinite set still leaves you with an infinite set, but you nevertheless "gain knowledge" of what is not the case, even if you will never settle concretely on one specific thing that is the case. — Pfhorrest

That's very scientific and, in my opinion, applies to empirical knowledge where we're better off relying on falsifiability. As you can see, proving the disjuncts of an infinite disjunction false is hard work and is impossible. The usual way people go about building a belief system is to prove the truth of propositions, plus it's a widely expressed belief that the burden of proof relies on the person making a positive assertion rather than the one negating said proposition. However, the merit of your method is in keeping all options visible and given equal importance as should be the case: it prevents prejudice and bias.

There are no points at infinity on the real line, so the function's not defined there. And just because a function has a limit at infinity, that does NOT imply that the function is defined "at infinity," which is meaningless in the real numbers.

Is that what you are saying? — fishfry

Yes. Thanks

This doesn't follow at all, and it also happens to have the effect of attempting to naturalize racism, rather than recognizing it for the political phenomenon that it is. What matters is not difference simipliciter - there are as many differences between me and my daughter as there are between me and my other-raced friend - but differences deemeed significant or relevant in one way and not another. It's somewhat embarrasing that this needs to be said.

That we evolved to recognize differences is no less the 'root of racism' than the fact that we all have lungs. A necessary but not at all sufficient account of racism. Maybe think a little about what you're saying before spewing this dreck into the ether, hey? — StreetlightX

You speak as if I'm completely wrong about this but have a look at the first few lines on racism on Wikipedia:

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[1][2] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples — Wikipedia

It's quite clear from the passage above that racism grows out of an emphasis, or overemphasis if you like, on differences and overlooking similarities. I think my post provides a reasonable explanation as to why humans are attuned to differences rather than similarities as it aids in "discriminating" prey from predator from the community to which each individual belongs to.

Evolution is, as you already know, a veritable arms race and it so happens that blending into the background is an effective strategy for both prey and predator. Since identifying food and threat is an absolute requirement, animal camouflage exerts a selection pressure on our brains and senses in terms of enhancing "discriminatory" abilities and associating biological differences with either danger (predator) or opportunity (prey) and this probably fosters fear, dislike or a sense of right and dominion over animals that aren't like us and this is the "perfect" recipe for racism.

I've seen gnu/wildebeest herds on the African savnnah and it's impossible to ditinguish one individual from another. The same applies to other animals , whether hunter or prey. Such extremes of sameness across inividuals in animals is evidence for an evolutionry force that selects for reducing differences between inividuals of one species, at least as concerns physical appearance. As the likeness between members of a species increases the ability to see similarities is less of a priority; all individuals are almost identical to each other thus identifying your own species becomes an easy task and the ability to see similarities need not be highly developed.

Ergo, racism arises from the evolved ability to "discriminate" friend from foe or food. It is, in my opinion, a primitive instinct which gave our ancestors an advantage in the evolutionary arms race we're all part of. As is obvious it leads to all problems that has to do with discrimination - racism, communalism, jihad, etc.

Racism is learned cultural behavior — Baden

Familiar=safe — Baden

You're right and I agree that culture plays a role insofar as it encourages "discriminatory" mindsets and behavior.

er, no. You - you- keep affirming the consequent. I have not. My arguments are all valid. — Bartricks

Thanks for staying with me so far. Really appreciate it

er, no. You - you- keep affirming the consequent. I have not. My arguments are all valid. — Bartricks

:ok: :up:

Why such a violent reaction to a young girl who's bringing the world's attention to a matter of great urgency for us all?

I really appreciate her heart-felt outburst against you-know-who, the-one-who-must-not-be-named by which I mean the adults. Many unkind words and pictures directed towards the young Greta. Quite unfortunate.

What concerns me is the role-reversal; a child is tutoring adults on how to run the world in an impassioned speech to world leaders, all adults. When a man uses his feet to do something the hands are supposed to do, it means the hands are severely incapacitated. Likewise, when a child's trying so hard to bring what is an urgent issue like climate change to our attention, it doesn't bode well for the world - the adults have failed miserably.

And in fact what you say, has been proposed, they call it "After-birth abortion". — Pussycat

After-swallowing chew :chin:

:ok:

Infinity is not a number and even if it is 1/(-/+infinity) will always be a non-zero value for the simple reason that there's no number that satisfies the equation 1/x = 0. Dividing by larger and larger x values will result in 1/x approaching zero as a limit but it'll never be the case that 1/x = 0.

In my humble opinion, the story of philosophy is much like that of the average family. Philosophy has birthed many, many children and the succesful ones have left the nest to make their mark on the world but the problem-children - those difficult to tackle - have stayed home and philosophy is making an effort to help them stand on their own feet so that one fine day they too may leave and become disciplines in their own right. That all independent subjects of study are utlimately connected to philosophy is given away by the highest degree attainable in all fields of study - the PhD or doctor of philosophy. The PhD is like the navel, a remnant of the umbilical cord that connects all subjects back to philisophy.

The entire abortion issue should've been buried the day contraception was invented. After all, if we can prevent conception as easily as is now possible, abortion becomes meaningless. While I can understand the need for abortion in cases where fetuses are so severely diseased as to make living a veritable hell or when rape results in a pregnancy or contraception failure, I'm uncomfortable with what the label pro-choice implies. Pro-choice as a term used by advocates of abortion has positive connotations, having to do with women's rights over their bodies and all. However, there's something sinister about such an outlook- it seems to license irresponsible behavior by neglecting to give due importance to contraception which could've easily prevented pregnancy in the first place.

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on science, here standing for the "more" educated segment of the population, and religion.

I'm going to invent the statistics here but they're important only in a relative sense so it doesn't matter. 50% of the general population are theists; 25% of scientists are theists; 12% of Nobel Laureates are theists. The numbers fall as the level of education increases but, a big but, the numbers don't fall off to zero. So, Tyson claims, we shouldn't be impressed in any way about the decline in religious belief as much as we should be by the fact that a percentage, albeit a small number, of even Nobel Laureates believe in a god.

The non-overlapping magisteria concept is appealing and if it had worked science and religion would've been happy companions. Unfortunately, science, especially geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology contradict scriptural claims and that's where the problems begin. Incompatible claims indicate one side is wrong and religion is losing the battle on that front.

It seems that Forrester's argument turns on one premise which is that if we murder then we must murder gently which he bases on the brutal/savage murder vs merciful murder which is a widely held moral intuition. So we get the following:

Let Ox = it's obligatory to do x

1. We ought to murder gently (Og)
2. If we murder gently (g) then we murder (m)
3. If we ought to murder gently (Og) then we ought to murder (Om)
Ergo
4. We ought to murder (Om)

1. Og
2. g -> m
3. Og -> Om
Ergo
4. Om

As I said before, premise 3 is questionable but it seems that in deontic logic it's true that if we murder gently then we murder, it implies that if we ought to murder gently then we ought to murder i.e. p -> q implies that p is obligatory -> q is obligatory too.

Actually if Ox = obligatory to do x, then p -> q implies that Op -> Oq makes complete sense in the following example:

5. If to save a million lives (s), it's necessary to kill a mass-murderer (k) then if it's obligatory to save a million lives, it's obligatory to kill a mass-murder. In symbols it becomes...

6. s -> k
7. Os -> Ok

Notice the word "necessary" in 5 above. I think there's a difference between necessary and obligatory. The word "necessary" describes an inevitability and can be easily deduced in 6 and 7 above. In Forrester's argument the obligatory part (Og -> Om) describes a necessity of murder if one ever murders gently but you aren't obligated to murder just because of the belief that one has to merciful while murdering someone.

Basically, on some occasions the necessary is obligatory and at other times the necessary isn't obligatory, morally speaking.

Your point about the hidden premise that it’s obligatory to not murder was a key part of my OP. — Pfhorrest

I have absolutely zero understanding of deontic logic but there's a key rule that applies to Forrester's argument and it's this:

1. p -> q implies that p is obligatory -> q is obligatory which leads us from Smith murders Jones gently -> Smith murders Jones to the problematic premise it's obligatory that Smith murders Jones gently -> it's obligatory that Smith murders Jones.

The great Aristotle defined humans as rational animals. I believed he used the word "man" and not "humans" which reflects the age-old tradition of men looking down on women. Anothet word that indicates the gender bias is "mankind" for humans. Even biological nomenclature expresses this bias: humans are homo/man sapiens. In other words women have been excluded by none other than men, with tacit approval of the fairer sex themselves, from the category of humans with the explicit intention of claiming superiority.

However, despite the high levels of testosterone bathing male brains, men must inevitably come to the realization that the only difference that really counts is rationality. Take strength and men are weaklings compared to a silverback gorilla and all other physical attributes men claim they posses are likewise inferior to animals. Ergo, to not make animals of themselves they have to fall back on the only quality they're superior at - rationality.

Unfortunately (for men), rationality isn't gender-dependent such that men are better thinkers than women. Logic is neither a Y chromosome thing nor does it arise in the testicles. So, such being the case, women and men don't differ in the most crucial aspect of our humanness. Men and women are identical to each other as far as being human is concerned.

Of course there exists traditional roles for both men and women but these can be chalked up to physical differences and not disparity in mental ability. In this day and age these historical gender-roles are rapidly fading away. Since being human is to be only rational and has nothing to do with the genitalia, I find it odd that a person would want to change sex because now and in the future it won't make a difference whether you're a dick or a pussy.

You are just reasoning fallaciously. — Bartricks

I think that makes two of us.

I appreciate this. Many a classic or modern conundrum is often served up missing essential elements.

Well spotted, TMF. I did not have the wherewithal to assume this may be missing something. — god must be atheist

You're joking, right? I wish the OP had a comment to make.

as far as I can understand Forrester's argument is like below:

1. If you commit murder then it is obligatory that you murder gently
2. If you murder gently then you commit murder
3. If it is obligatory to murder gently then it is obligatory that you commit murder (?????)
4. It is obligatory to murder gently
5. It is obligatory that you murder (from 3, 4 Modus ponens)
.
.
.
6. It is obligatory that you don't murder
7. It is obligatory that you murder & It is obligatory that you don't murder (5, 6 Conj)

Firstly, statement 3 is problematic because it's quite clearly wrong e.g if it's obligatory to tone done an action doesn't imply that it's obligatory to perform the action. For instance, parents dial down on the punishment they mete out to their children but that doesn't imply that it's obligatory to punish their children. Put another way, if it's obligatory to be merciful it doesn't follow that it's obligatory to put yourself in situations you have to be merciful. :rofl:

Also, I think the argument is missing the critical premise which is this: It is obligatory that you don't murder. Notice, it isn't qualified with a conditional like proposition 1 and is to be applied universally i.e. this premise has to be included in this argument too. Including this missing premise leads to a contradiction, line 7. Since you can't reject the premise that it is obligatory that you don't murder you'll have to reject one of the premises in the argument. It can't be 1 for we accept that one has to be merciful. It can't be 2 because well if you've murdered someone, gently or not, you have murdered. It can't be 4 because it is obligatory that if you murder then you do it gently. That leaves us with only one proposition to reject, to wit, 3. If it is obligatory to murder gently then it is obligatory that you commit murder.

Uh ... yeah, is this a trick question? — fishfry

Why would I ask a trick question? I'm just trying to figure things out.

You might be a few molecules off. — fishfry

:rofl: I think I'm missing more than a "few" molecules but that's beside the point. What I want to know is whether the distance AB is the same as the distance BA where A and B are the same points. If the past stretches to negative infinity from the present wouldn't that mean the universe would've to experience positive infinity to reach the present? If B = past and A = the present then the time AB = negative infinity and the time BA = positive infinity. If you agree with me so far and I see no reason to not do so then that would mean a positive infinity of time should've elapsed to reach the present i.e. a completed infinity is require and we know that completed infinity is an oxymoron or, to be explicit, a blatant contradiction. However, I keep an open mind about this: there are more things in heaven and on earth than can be dreamed up in your philosophy

If I travel from Istanbul to New York by plane the distance is 8,065 km. If I return from New York to Istanbul, again by plane and on the same route the distance will again be 8,065 km right?

Again, one of those - mine - is an a priori truth of reason. Or do you think that it makes sense that a mental state could exist absent an object that it is the state of? — Bartricks

Firstly, I'm more than a little concerned about you using the word "mind". Some people consider the mind to be a function of the brain, an emergent pheonomenon or something like that. You seem to speak of the mind as if it's distinct from brain processes - having an independent existence of itself.

As far as I can see, your only attempt to prove that the mind exists separately from the brain has been based on the indivisibility of the mind but now you run into the problem of being unable to differentiate the mind from nothing since nothing too is equally indivisible.

When I raised this concern you responded with the assertion that the mind thinks but nothing doesn't think. My question is how do you know that it's the mind and not the brain that does the thinking and that the mind is not just a brain process? Your response will probably be based on the indivisibility of the mind which is necessary to prove the mind is an indepedent immaterial thing but then that leads us back to the problem of the mind, in your terms, being exactly identical to nothingness.

You: The mind is indivisible. Therefore it's immaterial
Me: Nothing is also indivisible. So, nothing = mind
You: No. The mind thinks but nothing does not
Me: How do you know that it's not the brain that thinks?
You: The mind is indivisible. Therefore it's immaterial. Therefore it can't be the brain that thinks.
Me: Nothing is also indivisible. So, nothing = mind
You: No, the mind thinks but nothing does not
Me: Your whole argument rests on indivisibility and I've shown that your concept of mind based on it is identical to nothingness.

You can see the circularity right?

Did you find the picture helpful? — fishfry

Yes. Thank you.

So what? The cosine function has infinitely many inputs that go to the same output. cosθ=cos(θ+2πn)cos⁡θ=cos⁡(θ+2πn) for any integer n. And they are spread out arbitrarily far apart. What of it?

Just because you have two quantities that happen to have the same limit, doesn't mean that the two quantities are equal to each other. Just like two different travelers who both end up in Poughkeepsie. They aren't the same person just because they ended up in the same town. — fishfry

I was simply pointing out that, taken as a function, f(x) = 1/x, we can see that just because f(a) = f(b), it doesn't imply that a = b. As a relationship, and you told me about it in another thread, it's a case of injection where both f(+infinity) and f(-infinity) give the same result 0.

I take this to mean that the end behavior of f(x) = 1/x is very much like g(x) = x^2 in which (-a)^2 = (+a)^2 but -a not= +a.

Yet, simple algebra does show that if 1/x = 1/y then x = y. The function f(x) = 1/x doesn't involve squaring but we do multiply by the product xy which is (-infinity)(+infinity). Is this where the problem occurs?

I restricted the domain of F(x)=x and G(x)=3x to [91, inf) and [1,30] respectively. Ofcourse it is a wrong conclusion and it we won't get any contradictions as long as the two functions we are comparing have domains that overlap. — Wittgenstein

Yes, the restriction precludes the conclusion 1 > 3. The inputs aren't identical

To All interested. When one considers the function f(x) = 1/x, we can see that the inputs to the f(x) changes dramatically with positive infinity and negative infinity but the output of f(x) is identical i.e. it's zero. In other words we have a single output for two inputs that are the very name of being poles apart. There's one function that has a similar behavior to wit squaring: if f(x) = x^2 then f(+2) = f(-2) = (+2)^2 = (-2)^2 = 4 but (+2) not= (-2). Could we say the same thing about the function f(x) = 1/x? Just because f(positive infinity) = f(negative infinity) = 0 doesn't imply that positive infinity = negative infinity.

However if 1/x = 1/y then basic algebra proves that x = y. This is not the case with f(x) = x^2. Just because a^2 = b^2 we can't infer that a = b.

#!/usr/bin/env lua

print("hello world")
print("I can correctly parse this. What would there — alcontali

How are you doing that? Color and all.

Clearly F(x)>G(x) , hence x>3x. — Wittgenstein

I think this doesn't follow.

f(x) = 7x and g(x) = 2x
if x = 1 for f(x) and x = 2 for g(x) then we have
f(1) =7 and g(2) = 4
f(1) > g(2) but 1 < 2

So, we have a situation where f(x) > g(x) but only when the input values are identical. If not then we can't conclude that f(x) > g(x) always implies the inputs have the exact relationship as the functions themselves.

Is infinity a Western Concept? I wasn't aware of that? Anyway...here's a simple argument:

Suppose a distance of 100 km between points A and B. If we travel from A to B we cover a distance of 100 km. However if we were to travel in the reverse direction, from B to A, we still cover the same distance of -100 km. Right?

Similarly when someone claims that there was no beginning, it implies an infinite past. Mathematically, if we take the present to be 0 on the integer number line then the past extends to negative infinity. That simply means that if we travel back into the past we would be faced with negative infinity and never reach a beginning point. However, like in my example of a 100 km distance between points A and B, if we travel from our past which is negative infinity to the present, point 0 on the integer number line, then we would have to traverse a positive infinity of time to reach the present, point 0 on the integer number line. However, positive infinity is, by definition, an interminable quantity and a task that cannot be completed.

Thank you for the lesson in logic but what I meant to convey was that it's uncertain whether your premise: If there are mental states, there is an object - a thing, called 'a mind' - that they are the states of or my premise: If there are mental states, there is an object - a thing, called 'a brain' - that they are states of is true. My premise pins thoughts/thinking on the brain and your premise chalks it up to the mind. Your premise requires that the mind be immaterial since you disagree with me and I claim that it's a material object - the brain - that does the thinking. The only method that's available to you is to then show the mind is indivisible but even nothing is indivisble. You'd then be required to show that there's a difference between mind and nothing and the way you've done that is by claiming that the mind thinks and nothing doesn't but this is exactly the point of contention isn't it - is it an immaterial mind that thinks or is it the brain that thinks? I sense a circularity here.

That's interesting - I clearly need to work on expressing myself, as it was certainly not my intention to complain about 'humanity' in the first post, (assuming you're referring to actual humans). — Danek21

people who talk about doing good for humanity in the abstract, are not actually that pleasant to the actual flesh and blood humans they encounter — Danek21

The above, to me at least, indicates a dim view of humans/humanity which you reversed in later posts and below

point I was ham-fistedly trying to make is essentially a very pro-human one, namely that actual extant human beings get an unfairly hard time of it from philosophers and intellectuals, who use the abstraction 'humanity' as a kind of straw man repository for negative emotional reactions. — Danek21

To begin with, you're not ham-fisted. Secondly, I think we should cut people some slack; you know that, no matter how many hierarchies or divisions we create among humans, we're all in the same boat and all bleed the same red blood when cut. Personally speaking, from the little I've tasted of life, philosophers do a pretty fine job and their work should be made accessible because, despite their reputation as being obstruse and impractical, they actually tackle the most difficult problems, problems which other disciplines won't touch with a ten-foot pole.

In the first few pages of most introductory philosophy book you will always encounter the founding father, Socrates saying, "the unexamined life is not worth living". What does Socrates mean by that? An answer that has relevance to your issue with humanity is that we need to know what the good life means and how to live it. Socrates' gem is then a call to all humans, humanity, to put their shoulders to the wheel to discover the good life; after all if all of us live the good life, it would benefit everyone, right?

I agree that, to the extent that I'm aware, modern philosophy is quite different. They seem almost nauseated by their failure to bring closure to almost everything that has become part of philosophy. Each attempt at a solution seems like cutting off the head of Hydra; two more problems replace it. Nevertheless, the true spirit of philosophy was/is/will be aligned more or less to the idea of the good life. In this search for answers, philosophers may ruffle a few feathers here and there but these, in my opinion, are minor inconveniences we must bear as we must for everything else.

Imagine you are born as adult, fully intelligent, in a completely empty universe. What does it even mean to be intelligent without having no any information about anything? Or do we get born with some kind of basic information with which we could then derive some basic concepts and eventually geometry and math? By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

A very difficult scenario to make sense of. What would a lonely existence in an empty universe be like as an experience? Since the universe is empty the only thing left to become aware of, as a consciousness, would be the self. Would I as a conscious being, alone and surrounded by nothing, ever become aware of myself?

I don't remember myself as a child. Yes, I did feel mental and physical pain but my childhood, as is probably everyone's, could be described as a house with the lights on but without any occupants. So, even with constant external pressure, gently and sometimes violently, impressing upon me my own selfhood, the realization escaped me until the late teens and even then it was a very dim sense of selfhood. Only later, much much later, did I ever become aware of my own self and that process involved a great deal of prodding by the external world. If this description fits most of us then, it would be nigh impossible for a single inhabitant of an empty universe to know the only truth knowable in such a universe viz. knowledge of its own existence.

The self exists only in relation to a not-self. There must be an other against which a conscious being collides into and through that meeting become self-aware; an empty universe is devoid of such an opportunity and so it must be that a single denizen of an empty universe will find it next to impossible to gain the single piece of knowledge avaialble to it.