‘Let there be light’ and so ‘light’ becomes — I like sushi

Sorry, was I supposed to have got something from that? Alas, my little grey cells are on holiday. No, they're underpaid. It must be a general strike! Oh, crap! Call the police! Call God! Call Mr. Magoo! Call...somebody for God's sakes! :lol:

It helps to understand a so-called ‘theist’ by asking what they mean by ‘god’ or whatever term they pick. — I like sushi

We use words, correctly at that, without being able to articulate what they mean. Sorcery! Bewitchment (by language) [re Wittgenstein].

This is a surprisingly common question on this forum — I like sushi

Newbies trying to find their way or veterans engaged in soul-searching. What else, oui?

I'm quite taken aback that you don't mention wisdom (sophia) [philosophia]. Perhaps wisdom is an amalgam of those qualities/skills you were so kind to list in your definition of a philosopher. Perhaps I'm wrong to say that, dunno!

The ancient philosophers were trailblazers, terra nova, everything they did - even their BS - was important and, by they way they frequently, sooner or later, pop up in discussions, is still.

Modern philosophers, since there's no point reinventing the wheel, are forced to spend a considerable amount of their resources on learning ground covered by their predecessors and their contemporaries. This inevitably leads to stagnation in my humble opinion as many older perspectives on philosophical matters aren't open-and-shut cases. Back and forth between philosophers mostly involve one dead-and-buried philosopher's take against another long-dead philosopher.

To borrow a term from business, innovation is not exactly high on a present-day philosopher's list of priorities. "Nothing unexpected," a real philosopher might opine. Philosophy is nothing more than an anthology of problems that have been passed down from generation to generation, each step of the way marked by the addition of more problems, questions rather, to this fast-growing list.

What is a philosopher?

A philosopher is a person who understands or attempts to understand age-old problems/questions better. Answers/solutions? Another time, pal!

Symmetry — apokrisis

Mind if I pick you brain on the concept of symmetry.
---

One kinda symmetry is geometric, we learn it in high school:

1. Reflection/mirror symmetry. The letters A C, H have them.

2. Rotational symmetry: S and O have them.
---

The other kind is what I call Noether symmetry in which the past and the present, through the future are identical with respect to something. Conservation laws seem to possess this type of symmetry: You start with 10 J of energy at time t₁, you wind up with 10 J of energy at another time t₂ (law of conservation of energy).
---

What's the relationship, if any, between the geometric symmetries mentioned above and Noether symmetry? They seem to be unrelated, yet I sense some connection among them. Can't put my finger on it, alas.

Rasmussen has clinched the diagnosis: The universe is "suffering from" Cotard's delusion. Oddly, the Buddha thought that the ego, a facet of which is I this, I that, was the cause of all sorrow; he opted for self-negation (anatta).

The universe (vicariously through Rasmussen and his clique of followers, Gorgias included): I don't exist!

EugeneW

Unfortunately or not, I can't seem to recall a to-the-point scene from a movie to demonstrate my thoughts on the matter. Suffice it to say that there is one, one perfect for the occasion.

All I can say for the time being is that destruction is a phase in creation. The old, though beautiful, is destroyed, usually to create space, so that it can be replaced by something even more gorgeous...like you ( :smile: )

In a hovel, 6000 BC, a conversation. "Who made this bow?" "Chala." "Oh ok, who made this statue?" "Honta." "I see, who made this necklace?" "Darla." "Heeeyyyy, who made us? Who made this earth? Who made the sun, the moon, the stars, the universe?" "WTF? :chin: G-g-g-o-d?"

This is how early humans may have come to think of creation: an extrapolation of the ordinary notion of a maker that might've been the staple of conversations around fires to the universe itself.

Baked into the concept of a maker is a powerful, conscious, intelligent being and a beginning.

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) are the master keys to solving ALL our problems. The ills chalked up to technology (carbon crisis aka global warming) are due to imperfect design; once we master technology, it would/should be indistinguishable from nature itself. This blurring of the boundary between artificial and natural will be so complete that William Payley's watch analogy will become pointless. I advocate/foresee a return to nature post-technology; all so-called machines will be living creatures, but mind you, I'm not suggesting a return to slavery (parasitism), rather a mutually beneficial arrangements (symbiosis).

As for suffering and the transhumanist goal of its abolishment, I'm all for it. There are two ways of going about achieving this:

1. The cause of suffering needs to be dealt with. The Buddha comes to mind. Buddhism is the only religion in the world that has taken a doctor's point of view on this issue. The Buddha actually identified the cause(s) of suffering, one of which is a failure to appreciate truth, anicca to be precise.

2. The suffering system (the physical and mental mechanisms of pain & angst). The West has been a world leader in this department: pharmaceuticals (analgesics, antidepressants, anesthesia & surgery to name but a few).

The east, as you can see, has focused its efforts on reorienting minds, to align expectations with reality. The west has, on the whole, been focused on the science of suffering (chemistry & physics).

I'm sure east and west can tie up to further the transhumanist cause - the end of Algos' tyrannical rule.

wont turn my other cheeck! — EugeneW

You should! Sorry for butting in. I really think we should always, as a rule, turn the cheek. Once the 2 on your face are done with, it gets interesting. :lol:

having a little more 'faith' — universeness

Serves dollops of faith to whoever the comment was directed to.

I'm with Sean! — universeness

Connery? :smile:

But it displays its stupidity (no offense!). — EugeneW

It does not. What's (so) stupid about solipsisim? Explain your statement, please. Is solipsism something impossible? Mulgere hircum?

Thomas Malthus, eugenics, are alive and kicking! Thin the herd! — EugeneW

Thin the herd! :chin: There's the mass-murderer inside you. Good day, nice to meet you, ma'am!

Let's rethink the situation (as properly as we can).

Men don't rule the roost and women aren't lowest on the totem pole as it were.

The reality is women aren't weak and men strong, women are only less powerful than men. In other words, females are simply lower in the pecking order, they are henpecking nevertheless.

Women, keep looking up!

Once upon a time, in the land of 1000 solipsists, one of them died. But the 999 left, didn't care. — EugeneW

This doesn't establish the falsity of solipsism in my humble opinion; people "die" in video games. I have a kill count of roughly 3 million in Rome Total War, excluding those who met their end due to plagues and natural disasters (floods & earthquakes). I'm a genoicidal maniac (hides in shame). Oh shit! ( :sad: )

Inter alia, I don't like to be alone. — EugeneW

I don't like the sun; yet, here I am in the land of the Pharoahs, Akhenaten's resting place!

Im just no solipsist — EugeneW

Any good argument for why you're not...solipsist?

Gods are no theory and neither is the big bang, not even infinite of them. Do I have proof? Ýes. Of course, that's what I think. — EugeneW

I wish you were a bona fide authority, my life would've been much simpler. Simple is good, oui? Big brother sister knows, trust EugeneW. :smile:

Too many questions. :smile:

What I can say is this: In the dark, the mind loses control; the unknown is flooded with possibilities. It's like an MCQ exam, only the choices are so many, infinite some even say, that we're unable to finish reading the question, forget about answering it.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. — L'éléphant

That's how change begins! Godspeed!

I believe I already mentioned this somewhere but here's the deal.

When your pay is subsistence-only, the money you get today can be used only to put enough food in your tummy to get to work the next day. That's a raw deal any way you look at it. The cycle continues daily, weekly, monthly, year on end, until you can no longer sustain it - you fall ill or you die.

Work (today) $\rightarrow$ Pay (for today's work) $\rightarrow$ Food (for tomorrow's work) $\rightarrow$ Work (tomorrow).

Where is the humanity in this?

Like, it's you who brought it up. Okay. — L'éléphant

:zip: Some things better left unsaid.

You broke someone's heart? Were you in a position to do that? — L'éléphant

I'll say no more.

self-explained existences are logically necessary. There may come a time in exploration where there is no prior causality. And that's ok. There's no need to continue to invent something that caused what appears to be the limits of our understanding within causality. — Philosophim

You hit the nail on the head. A few points:

1. Explanation (for existence) = Cause (for existence).

2. A first cause has to be self-caused unless you reject the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). The catch is: in all cases observed so far, the cause exists before the effect. If so, how can something be self-caused? It must exist before it exists!? :chin:

The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. It is the end of our understanding. — Sean Carroll

Did someone break your heart? — L'éléphant

I think I broke someone's :sad:

Yes, one could argue like this as well. That's why I've been saying all along, why require proof of existence of god from believers? Why is there a special standard for this kind of belief that we don't see in others. And again, I've already mentioned the big bang, which no one here has countered. There's no proof of the big bang. Just some "testable evidence". — L'éléphant

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

The Big Bang is a scientific hypothesis, God too, whether theists like it or not, is a scientific hypothesis, hypotheses being explanatory frameworks for observable phenomena.

The bottom line is hypotheses can be tested via the predictions they make: What do the hypotheses entail? Can we observe them? If no, the hypothesis in question is false. If yes, it's still in the game so to speak.

Perhaps this is an issue of lazy science. All established scientific theories even Einstein's should be stated with qualifications e.g. it seems the theory of relativity is "true" or that the theory of relativity is the best theory we have at the moment ($best \neq true$).

Is God the/one of the best thoeries we have?

So to deal with Parmenides and Heraclitus, we need to

1. Posit two levels of reality (universal and particular). Heraclitean change occurs in particulars while the Paremindean universals (forms/ideas) don't undergo change or remain constant.

2. Decide which, the universals or the particulars, is to be deemed real. Once we do that it's either Parmenides or Heraclitus but definitely not both.

Am I understanding you correctly?

I was thinking more along the lines of quantum entanglement(spooky action at a distance). — creativesoul

Oh, I see. I never really understood why action at a distance would be "spooky"? Perhaps it violates the light speed law in Einstein's universe. That would be an inconsistency then, oui? Etiher Einstein is wrong or entanglement is impossible, but Einstein is right and entanglement has been experimentally verified. :chin:

Are you suggesting that spooky action at a distance is gods' doing? Why would they interest themselves in such seemingly minor aspects of reality unless...quantum entanglement has implications in ethics, the bailiwick of the gods?

brain is not programmed — EugeneW

The brain is a memory device and, roughly speaking, an analytical engine rolled into one. The ability to learn can be reduced to pattern recognition and their storage for future reference. All of these abilities, methinks, are programmable.

incredible speed of the computer clock. — EugeneW

Speed, yep! The computer operates at the level of perhaps a worm's "intelligence", but it makes up for that with astonishing speed, made possible by the fact that it works on electricity and not biolelectricity, the latter being much much slower.

Well, I have several ways to show that I'm not underestimating computers — Daemon

I change my mind, out with it.

I see no contradiction. — jgill

Spoken like a true logician.

The false assumption though is that machines can exhibit intelligent behavior. They will always have 0 IQ. — EugeneW

What part of an IQ test assesses memory?

One class of paradoxes is of particular interest to me because it seems to drive a giant wedge between rationalism and empiricism.

Zeno has a couple, one being the a priori impossibility of motion and the a posteriori actuality of motion (the dichotomy paradox).

Up until Zeno, the Parmenidean luminary, discovered these paradoxes, (Greek) thinkers must've been completely convinced of the power of lumen naturale (the light of reason) to make sense of the world - in every case, reason merely served to confirm observation or if ever the two were in conflict, reason would come out on top, an doublechecking empirical data would reveal errors, subtle and egregious.

This, however, wasn't/isn't possible with the dichotomy paradox. Logic clearly demonstrates motion is impossible; observation, to our dismay, shows that motion is not only possible but actual (ambulando solvitur).

As you can see, a pre-Zeno reconciliation of rationalism and empiricism is impossible. We have to make a choice: believe our minds or believe our legs, but not both! We all know Zeno's preference: motion, in the Parmenidean umiverse, is an illusion. I guess this means Zeno, Parmenideans, were true blue rationalists.

That said, Zeno clearly wasn't as mathematically talented as Archimedes who had used the method of exhaustion (limits) to calculate the value of $\pi$, presaging the advent of calculus by roughly 1.8 k years. Calculus in its full glory took off with Newton and Leibniz and it could be said that calculus (differentiation and integration) could one day bridge the rationalism vs. empiricism gulf.

Aside: Actual may not imply possible.

Rewind to 10,000 BC and we were small fry, just a handful of homo sapiens tribes that slowly split into different groups and settled in different locales. Over millennia, each of these, in isolation, began to evolve unique cultures. The question was the same: What on earth means all this? The answers, however, were very different, so different in fact that when we looked at the answers, we get the impression that more than one question was asked.

The only sense I can make of it is this: lacking an objective answer to such a difficult question, the only alternative left was to do it subjectively; hence the rich variety of replies to the same query. I'm gonna stick my neck out and say that religions are, by and large, perspectives offered by different peoples to the question of all questions, to reiterate, what means all this?

Passing the test doesn't confer personhood. — Daemon

You would say that, daemon!

overestimate the capabilities of computer programs. — Daemon

How do we know you're not swinging towards the other end of the spectrum, underestimation? I don't wanna argue the point, just making it explicit.

Well between your blind alley's and my tangents and trips outside of the solar system, it's unlikely we will ever find ourselves on common ground. Hey ho, such is life — universeness

:lol:

What's the argument involved in atheism? Please argue with me dear! :lol: — EugeneW

There are many games you can play against yourself. Look for a solitaire version of atheism vs. theism.

Why Agentus, why??? Just try tow write it. I tried in vain. If I succeed in writing a random sequence of 1s and 0s, it would a true coincidence! — EugeneW

Both our energies and times could be spent doing something else, hopefully something better, oui?

Pauli's exclusion principle states that an atom cannot have the same set of quantum numbers in its electronic configuration. It has scientific rigor, why do you conflate it with your subjective opinion about whether or not the atheist or theist posits can be considered beliefs or arguments?
You have demonstrated many times in your postings that you have impressive analytical abilities but you also allow that ability to be fogged by taking the direction of exchange down wasteful blind alleys at times. This is just my opinion of course. You like to wear a coat of many colours Agent Smith.
I prefer you on 'straight up' mode. Not that I ever want to dent your sense of humour. Humour remains vital to all. — universeness

I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! :smile:

I dunno what else to say Jack Cummins.

Maybe one needs to set up a reminder on your smartphone - the first thing in the morning, be/stay positive. I'd like to experiment that on myself, but I'm so god damned lazy that I'd rather my day was miserable than put any effort at making it better. Is it a wonder that I'm so gloomy 99% of my waking life and that's not all, I have nightmares and weird dreams in which I relive all the bad experiences in my life. It's either fear or humiliation. Not much of a choice there, oui? :chin: Hmmmm...

Anyway, returning to the topic of your interest the law of attraction - I feel, setting the aside the possibility that we could be deluding ourselves, we could work something out; you know, test the hypothesis, like any sane or practically-minded person would. What say you?

I don't know which is worse? Killing people (Putin) or letting people die (Biden)? :chin:

Is this the Russian version of The Trolley Problem? Utilitarians!

:ok: Sorry, I asked!