We need to reevaluate the methods we use in our correction facilities because they are against the well being of the prisoners.
That argument also favors the role of "well being" in morality. — Nickolasgaspar

:up: Prisons, I checked, can be traced back to the friggin' Bronze Age. I'm just shocked that it's still in vogue. Do you know of other Bronze Age relics that have survived the test of time? We need an upgrade and fast. Who's in charge here? Who's responsible for analyzing all the research papers on overall well-being of people, criminal or not?

I still don't get it. If imprisonment messes up our brains, chemically, we need to look into how long the effect lasts; quite possibly the damage to brain chemistry is permanent or long-lasting. This means those who've been released from gaol (physically) are still doing time (mentally). :chin:

well its a reoccurring pattern also observable in our previous interaction — Nickolasgaspar

:brow:

Meh. They are an indication that I am eating dinner and watching the news. Maybe tomorrow — Banno

:rofl:

you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. — Isaac

:scream:

You mean to say a prisoner will be released from jail feeling more bitter than when he was arraigned? No wonder recidivism is so rampant. Criminologists should talk to biologists/psychologists.

risk — jamalrob

:up:

There's such a thing as a calculated risk and my hunch is "nothing ventured, nothing gained" applies to only this particular kind of taking chances. Gambling, I'm told, can be a very intellectual activity if one only attends to the mechanics of probability. Of course whether calculated risks are true games of fortune is debatable.

This is easily falsified, as you request. A "state at a given time" cannot by itself determine any future activity. This is because a state is static, without activity, and any future activity of the thing in this state is dependent on what forces are applied to it. Therefore it is clearly false to say that the future action of a thing is "completely determined" by its present state, because it is also dependent on whatever forces are applied to it — Metaphysician Undercover

:scream: :scream:

All right, it's porridge (Genus) without sugar (differentia) — Banno

You have a point. This is a bloody cartoon!

The point is to determine what they are. — Banno

I answered that question 2/3 posts ago. Essential features are:

1. For a class, those properties which all members share.

2. For an individual, those properties that identify it and it alone from the rest in class.

The two seem to go hand in hand as far as I can tell: We must be able tell apart a class from other classes, like how individuals are distinguished from other individuals.

My hunch is that the first step towards a definition is to make observations. Assume there are only 5 object (A, B, C, D, E) in a hypothetical universe. We find out that A, B, and C share feature X and we then bring them under one banner, (say) religion. We also discover that C, D, and E have Y in common, we group them together as (say) philosophy.

As you can see, we have two classes in our hypothetical universe viz. religions and philosophies with only C being both.

This is the genus stage of proper definitions.

Now we have to find some way of differentiating A from B and C; the same goes for B and C and D, E.

This is the differentia stage of proper definitions.

From this very superficial analysis of good definitions, it appears that for us to able to define a word it's necessary for the referents of the word (the extension) to be both alike (genus) and unalike (differentia). That's a tall order even for someone as powerful as Momma Nature.

I'd be grateful if you could kindly attend more closely to the paragraph that immediately precedes this sentence. Much obliged. My paradox-o-meter is getting a reading. Maybe it's just a glitch!

The religious one, yes, by definition.

That's the thing about stipulating definitions. They make philosophy so much easier — Banno

The "religious" atheists? :chin: Is that not a contradiction?

Taking a few steps back, I'd say we're supposed to attend to only the essentials which, it just dawned on me, are simply those properties that populate the zone of overlap between purported religions.

Remember that we labeled the religions as religions and if we find nothing that links religions up, the blame falls squarely on our shoulders. GIGO!

No. It's exactly right. Show me were it goes wrong. — Banno

Porridge. Atheists eat porridge too, oui?

But it appears that porridge is the common factor in religions - the real religions. Of course, if you go and consider the religions that do not include porridge, you will become confused as to what the definition of religion is... — Banno

Indeed, porridge is a common factor, but you lost the plot now, oui? The definition is too broad.

Point is, and you seem to have missed this, it is unclear as to whether you have applied the rules correctly. You have simply stipulated that religions must include a deity. Why? Why can't I just stipulate that religions must include porridge? You disagree, and I reply "if you wanna break the rules knowingly don't be surprised to find words like religion have no essence." — Banno

Why? :chin:

For the simple reason that deities seem to be the common factor we should focus on with regard to religions. It appears that words are designed to pick out classes of objects and then the individuals of that class. To classify we need to look at what properties are shared and religion is one such class/category.

If I were to look at Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, it should be a cinch to realize that I have nothing to go on if my objective is to group them together under one banner. In other words, if I then use the word "religion" for all of them, I've commited a glaring error, definitionally speaking.

SO you are just an authoritarian with regard to definitions.

How ordinary. — Banno

Well, if you wanna break the rules knowingly don't be suprised to find words like "religion" and "game" have no essence. You can't have it both ways, oui?

Report yourself to the police! :grin:

@Banno It looks as though the word "like" and the concept that it represents plays a major role. So, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a God but the Buddha is God-like.

So back tot eh methodological point: you are saying that if Taoism does not admit to deities, it is not a religion, and that's an end to the discussion? But it is equally valid to ask if "religions must have deities" is one of the essential features of religions. — Banno

Indeed, it's not wrong to ask whether deities are essential features of religions. However, once we define the word "religion" according to the rules set out for a good definition, there's no confusion at all.

But your rules say "1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined" not "There should be a deity/deities"; so I am asking if you are indeed following your own rules. Perhaps "There should be a deity/deities" is not part of the essential attributes of religion. — Banno

Your disagreement stems from your exposure to a misused term viz religion. In other words, you're being misled by people who haven't followed the rules (of good definitions) when they coined the term "religion". To drive home the point, assume "religion" only applied to the Abrahamic Triad (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Would you still have written the OP?

Sri Lanka, being a Buddhist nation, should have zero or negligibly small karmic debts and, at the end of the day, that's what counts, oui?

:grin:

So are they religions? — Banno

No, they're not (religions).

Please follow the rules (of what a good definition is) and it's smooth sailing.

How? What is it you think we need to do? How to we move forward? What's your next step? — Banno

When we start off we have to always remind ourselves that a good definition

1. Must focus on the essential features

2. Must not be circular

3. Must not be obscure or, inversely, must be clear

4. Must be neither too broad nor too narrow

5. Must be positive instead of negative when possible

So when we define the word "religion" I could list down the following sufficient and necessary conditions:

i) There should be a deity/deities

ii) Ethics is a component

iii) Explanatory framework for the universe's origins

As soo as we do this, it becomes crystal clear what is a religion (The Abrahamic Triad & Hinduism) and what is not (Buddhism).

You get the idea.

So show us how it is done. — Banno

Shouldn't we (have) follow(ed) the rules of a good definition?

:up:

Perhaps we shouldn't be aiming for the abolishment of pain/suffering. Instead, let's try to reduce their intensity, their unpleasantness, their foolifying power - like how syringe needles are small, sharp and bevelled to make them less painful, not painless.

Perhaps, but the point is we have a perfectly good method for formulating definitions, one which if we adhere to, Wittgenstein would instantly become irrelevant to philosophy.

So, if we do pay attention to these rules, we can provide such a definition?

Well, set them out, so we may proceed — Banno

Yup.

An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be a member of a specific set.

---

Certain rules have traditionally been given for definitions (in particular, genus-differentia definitions).

1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.

2. Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as "a member of the species equus" would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locke adds that a definition of a term must not consist of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define "antecedent" without using the term "consequent", nor conversely.

3. The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).

4. The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.

5. A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define "wisdom" as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. For example, it appears difficult to define blindness in positive terms rather than as "the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted". — Wikipedia

Are you blaming the poor posters? Why should one assume that there might be such a thing as a good definition? I think the problem is rather that a "good definition" is impossible for such terms. — Banno

What I meant was it's not going to be possible to find sense in nonsense or thereabouts. We've been using the word "religion" without paying attention to the rules of good definitions. To then look for a good definition for "religion" is pointless, pisssing in the wind so to speak.

a narrow understanding of what suffering is — Possibility

:up: Leprosy has long been considered a divine punishment and people seem to be certain that it's an illness in need of a cure. Congenital Insensitivty to Pain (CIP) is also classified as a malady. However, I'm sure there's a comic out there that lists CIP as a superpower, to be used by the so-afflicted for good.

nicotine — Possibility

Nictoine, to my knowledge, is a neurochemical with effects on our in-built reward system and hence the physical dependence that characterizes addiction to nicotine.

The main quest here is to get a fix on the definition of "religion" and the biggest hurdle, as far as I can tell, here is that we've been lax with the rules of a good definition. It's a futile exercise i.e. such an attempt is doomed to fail. There's no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

How is there space without time? — chiknsld

Beats me! Durability, a notion we're familiar with from advertisements on kitchenware.

Nonsense. It usually forages whether it is hungry or not, and only if it passes phase 1 first where it might prioritize another task due to time of day, weather, danger, or being horny or something. But it certainly isn't a straight hunger-causes-foraging relationship.
I brought up the squirrel in case you included it in your list of things with free will. Apparently you don't, which is what I wanted to know. This tells me you're not one of those 'biology is special' types, but instead take an anthropocentric stance. At what point in our evolution do you suggest that the change from deterministic animal to free-willed creature,and more specifically, what distinguished the one physiology from its immediate predecessor? Or are you in denial of evolution? — noAxioms

Ok, mea culpa. It (the squirrel) eats when it's hungry. We can resist the urge to eat even when we're dying of hunger (hunger strikes).

In a sense then your Enformationism bridges the gap between spiritualism, sensu lato, and materialism! Though it's foundations are pure ideas, these ideas have practical significance.

Thanks for the brief but informative history lesson.

Yes, it would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now because they don't exist here and now. If there is an object such as a spacetime whose definition includes that there is no unicorn at a location X inside it, it would be a contradiction if a unicorn was at the location X in such a spacetime. A spacetime with a unicorn at the location X would be a different spacetime, another spacetime — litewave

:up:

From an evolutionary standpoint, it goes without saying that suffering serves a vital purpose. Of late, I've been drawn to the belief that there's no one wiser than Socrates Nature. 4.5 billion years of trial and error must count for something, oui? So, if suffering is an aspect of life, it must be so for a very good reason. You've alluded to it and I'm on board.

However, ever since we humans grew a brain, we've come to the realization that we maybe able to delink the unpleasantness of suffering from its purpose/function. Have we not done that with tobacco? We've elminated the risk of cancers by extracting the active ingredient (nicotine) and putting it in less hazardous delivery systems like dermal patches and gum? This idea is probably a component of the Transhumanism manifesto, the movement being, by and large, focused on the abolishment of suffering.

More can be said, but I'll leave it at that.

You should worship the sun god Helios/Ra and build your very own nuclear reactor in your backyard/basement. After all your Enformy counteracts the 2^nd law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases) and that's, science says, solar/stellar energy. :grin:

On the whole, I find your Enformationism a well-thought-out idea. As far as I can tell, you possess some (all?) of the tools that you'll require to pull this off/make the case for your theory.

what distinguishes a supposedly free willed human (or squirrel if you want) from something else that isn't free willed? — noAxioms

A squirrel feels hungry and immediately starts foraging.

A human feels hungry but doesn't necessarily make a beeline for the kitchen!

Interacting with you makes me tired and sad. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: No offense Yohan.

You're right to bow out of this conversation with your tail between your legs — Xtrix

:rofl: No offense Nickolasgaspar.

Is stating obvious racial differences, like IQ, racist, etc? — stoicHoneyBadger

That science or math is subjective is plain as the nose on your face! Duh!

Hidden order!

My theory, if you could call it that, is to not to be misled by the minority abd focus all our firepower on keeping the majority happy! How many masochists are there anyway? At some point, it should strike our addled brains that negligible is a concept that's perfectly serviceable. I dunno, mileage may vary.

The question is absolutely mind-blowing! As far as I can tell, definition is objective, but, for better or worse, meaning is subjective.

There's a definition for the word "coffee" but I recall someone telling me that when a girl offers you coffee, she means something else :wink:

Definition Meaning is use. — Ludwig Wittgenstein