you're forgetting — L'éléphant

:snicker:

For something to pop into existence from nothing

1. There must be, in Aristotelian terms, an efficient cause (primum movens).

2. There must be nothing

That's a contradiction, oui?

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

It is interesting, ain't it?, that like Laplace thought, if we mathematize the present, both the past and the future will reveal their secrets to us.

I'm most amazed at how powerful mathematics is and what a stroke of luck that our universe is mathematical (re Max Tegmark).

So, there I was in my garden :snicker: and I saw this quite hairy jumping spider crawling up the wall. I closed in for a better view, it saw me and it instantly froze up. I didn't want to scare it (I'm not a vegan but I wanna be one :snicker: ) and so I too stood still, as still as a human could. I don't know how long this standoff lasted - probably a few minutes - but the lil arachnid went back to doing what I interrupted, hunting prey I suppose.

Questions:

1. Did this spider have an inbuilt timer that counted down the seconds from the moment it froze in position, resuming its activity after a set duration?

2. What does this havta do with patience?

death instinct — ZzzoneiroCosm

:chin: Death instinct vs. Eros (life energy)

The answers to the following questions might provide us some insight into the issue of slavery.

1. Do you want slaves?

2. Do you want be a slave?

Being an übermensch is not only about doing whatever one wants but also requires resisting one's innate urges/instincts. Nietzsche was telling only half the story, oui?

He who conquers others is strong; he who conquers himself is mighty. — Lao Tzu/The Buddha

What is it like to be a bat?

To answer that question, one has to give an account of the iinner conscious life of a bat.

We seem to have been able to imagine what being a bat is like (Daredevil, Marvel Comics) and we can probably do it for real with the right ultrasound equipment. Nevertheless, that isn't the point now, is it?

The question, at the end of the day, wants us to realize that some files of consciousness aren't shareable. They remain private and only you are privy to them and there's, as of the moment, nothing you can do about that. These files are what constitute one's subjective, first-person experience. The only way I can access these files on another person's consciousness is to literally be them; impossible, as of now, and ergo, the hard problem of consciousness but, mind you, this is probably just a temporary setback. The future is notoriously difficult to predict.

Let's give this particular fact, that we're unable to share the subjective component of our experience, a name, shall we?

How about The Great Wall of Consciousness or The Veil of Consciousness or ____ (fill in the blanks)

Doctors, I came to know, encounter the subjectivity of experience on a daily basis. A patient walks into the consultation room, sits down, and begins "doctor, I have this pain in my tummy and it's like someone grabbed my stomach and gave it a hard twist."

Then there are other occasions when people say things like "I felt like a million dollars!"

These are workarounds to the insurmountable problem of sharing, making public, the subjective facet of experience. The objective here is to give the listener/reader some idea of what the speaker/writer is feeling/experiencing by looking for familiar landmarks such as winning a million dollars and being grabbed and wrung hard.

:snicker:

Nothing is more clear to me than what it is like to eat an apple while I'm eating an apple. — Hanover

:snicker:

How would you translate into logic the following statements?

1. Joe Biden exists.
2. Peter Parker doesn't exist.
3. Some dogs exist.
4. All apples exist.

It appears that, from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on fuzzy logic, that there are some/many aspects of reality that are spectral in character in terms of how we interact with them. The spectrum in question is divided up into manageable chunks, the boundaries between them are not precise values. This vagueness is what fuzzy logic was developed to tackle. I suppose we could say that fuzzy logic is grey zone logic.

As for the law of noncontradiction (the LNC) and fuzzy logic, my view is that the former holds in the latter. Yes that truth value can be somewhere in between 0 (false) and 1 (true) but it can never be 1 & 0 at the same time, nor is it that a truth value is (say) 0.7 and not 0.7.

Paraconsistent logics, on the other hand, are, as you rightly pointed out, systems in which a proposition has the combined truth value of 0 and 1 (at the same time and in the same respect) i.e. that proposition is a bona fide contradiction.

So, as per my analysis, fuzzy logic isn't a paraconsitent logic. I could be wrong of course, I do hope I'm not though.

Your BothAnd system feels more like paraconsistent logic than fuzzy logic to me. Maybe it's the words "both" and "and" which indicates you want to reconcile thesis (yes/1) AND antithesis (no/0) by approving BOTH.

It could be that I'm getting mixed up between the principle of bivalence and the law of noncontradiction.

You have the right not to be an idiot. — baker

Merci beaucoup, monsieur.

@Varde

To each his own. Truth is philosophers were after wisdom; what that is, nobody knows. Like quality in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, it (wisdom) is/remains undefined. Rest assured it has a lot to do with knowledge.

Meno's paradox:

If you know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is pointless.

If you don't know what you're inquiring about, inquiry is impossible.

Ergo, Meno claims,

Inquiry is either pointless or impossible.

No, think. If you agree that you're not acting on your right to flee suffering, then there must be a reason for this. — baker

Good point! I'll give it due consideration. Perhaps, I'm an idiot!

What's stopping you? — baker

Nothing! :snicker: Thanks for asking the right question.

From a hedonic perspective (what else?),

1. Morality is objective: Pain Bad. Pleasure Good.

2. Morality is subjective: Differences in what is painful and what is pleasurable.

So how do you intend to approach scrupulosity? — baker

Unscrupulously. :snicker:

thinking about knowledge. — Varde

That's just one facet of philosophy (epistemology). What about logic, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, and other branches of the subject?

Nevertheless, wisdom is, at some level, knowledge + a something else, but not necessarily so.

Life sucks — Bitter Crank

:snicker: It just dawned on me, we suck! We havta get it right or else...a world of pain, oui, monsieur?

Good. You are at your most eloquent with emojis. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Thanks for the compliment. Good day.

I'll have to get back to you later. I'm a li'l busy right now. Danke!

:roll:

You're the best! — Hillary

...of the worst! :snicker:

I said exactly what is wrong with what you said just a few posts ago! And I mentioned also in posts yesterday. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're just fooling around. Sorry, not interested, I'm not in the mood to play your silly games. Good day.

As your posting history suggests, your thousand apologies will be followed by a thousand more of your egregiously misinformational posts. One only has to sit back, have a cup of tea, and wait for the next one. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm sorry if you feel that way. What exactly is wrong with what I said?

There's very little original material, which I feel bad about, to critique. You should talk to Russell, Whitehead, Frege, et al. Not to me and since you are accusing me of misinformation, I'm somewhat inclined to believe you don't know what you're talking about.

Correct — Mww

:snicker:

I explained why you are incorrect. You are terribly mixed up and you don't know what you're talking about. And you add additional confusions and misinformation with each post. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:snicker: A thousand apologies.

Just curious: sometimes there is a direct quote to posts, sometimes not. You use two computers? — Hillary

I don't wanna waste other people's time. You get bogged down by replies when there are too many of 'em.

I read your links and as far as I'm concerned, you've hit the bullseye - who would've thought it was that simple and yet so profound?

Here's a list I came up with in re the so-called good life:

1. Self-actualization (be the best you can be, in mind, heart and in body)
2. Harmony, both internal (with yourself) and external (with others and the world at large)
3. Xin (heart-mind) - let reason guide you, but listen to your heart too.

In more modern terms:

1. IQ/Intelligence Quotient (be rational)
2. EQ/Emotional Quotient (emotional stability)
3. PQ/Physical Quotient (something that I thought up, seems self-explanatory)

Shit! Too late! Gotta wait for his second coming... — Hillary

:snicker:

Evil can be chased away only with incense — SpaceDweller

You maybe onto something. Certain kinds of music can defuse a tense situation. It works the other way round too, aggravate an already very volatile situation.

Why not smell too? Pheromones, perfume, cologne...what do they do?

Dear father of the holy gods — Hillary

:snicker: Quick, you have a 2 minute window before he does his disappearing act! :pray:

Sorry for butting in, but I don't think people would say such a thing as an infinitely sided polygon = a circle. However, place them side by side and you would be confused which is the polygon and which is the circle, oui?

That's the deal my dear. — Shakeera

Like I mentioned earlier, if we can't have chocolate, by god we'll have something chocolatish!

Heaven!

Sorry, no can do!

Heavenish then!

Check back in an hour!

Approaching without being able to touch. — Hillary

:up:

Update

My thesis is this: If there are true paradoxes,

EITHER

1. We must switch allegiance from classical logic to some version of paraconsistent logic

OR

2. Use Occam's broom and sweep these annoying paradoxes under the rug, ignore them, sequester them in a place where they won't do damage, and the damage can be terrible (vide ex falso quodlibet).

That's all.

I'm not at all convinced that our dating app :snicker: is doing its job properly. Carbon/radioactive dating apps, how foolproof are they?

What about Last Thursdayism?

Exactly, brother Agent! — Hillary

:snicker:

Your question makes no sense. — Banno

:chin: Rounding off a number makes no sense? It's taught in schools, to kids.

Life's too short for this. 0.0001 is not an infinitesimal. — Banno

Answer the question instead of beating around the bush.

If 0.0001 rounds off to 0, a fortiori an infinitesimal rounds off to 0, oui? Zeroish.