Update

One word, paradox, designed specifically to elicit/evoke/bring on aporia of the finest quality philosophy has to offer. There are so many paradoxes that one can even pick and choose i.e. customize one's experience of (utter) bafflement.

Money back guarantee.

My hunch is that the mind is in the spotlight so to speak in the scientific community - there's frenetic research ongoing in neuroscience, aimed at unravelling the mysteries of the mind, an enterprise equivalent in importance to space exploration (I'm fairly certain that a cost comparison between the two should vindicate my claim). Does anyone have hard data, figures, stats, to support this?

:smile:

The question of all questions is "is the imprecision a bug in language or a feature of reality?"

My main concern is the existence/nonexistence of (true) paradoxes. If they exist then, classical logic is trivial unless it excludes some rule of natural deduction that prevents ex falso quodlibet. The rule that most logicians choose to exclude from natural deduction in order to prevent explosion is disjunction introduction/addition. Should we do that? It seems the right course of action assuming there are (true/real) paradoxes.

The bottom line is this: either resolve all paradoxes OR accept paraconsistent logic.

Memes are screaming for procreation like genes? A curious case, dear Watson... — EugeneW

That's about it.

But nor do I think that the whole of Christianity deserves to be condemned on that basis. — Wayfarer

All or none thinking (in psychology known as splitting). The person who's affected by splitting fails to recognize and appreciate subtleties and nuances. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, not a wise move.

The other point that may be worth considering is the cultural origin of the idea that all human lives are sacrosanct. There were contemporaneous cultures, for example Incan culture, where human sacrifice was conducted on a massive scale - which we rightly regard as abhorrent, also condemned in that passage you quoted. And even today, in some cultures - I'm thinking of the People's Republic of China - there is a willingness to sacrifice individual lives, or even cultural identities, for the supposed stability of the society (likewise, abhorrent), reflecting what we regard as a fundamental abrogation of human rights. So - whence this idea that every human life is sacred in the first place? I would suggest that a large part of it originated from Christian social philosophy and their doctrine of universal salvation, even acknowledging the undeniable horrors that the Church has sometimes visited on the world. — Wayfarer

:clap: Excelente! Human sacrifice is still rampant (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few/one) in modern society, only it's no longer done with a knife/sword/poison like in the good ol' days; just like how racism has taken a more subtle form in this day and age, human sacrifice happens without shedding even a drop of blood.

Regarding the the Law of Attraction, if prayer and wishes are causal dead ends i.e. they produce no effect, so the scientific community claims then, we must admit that some things have no effect although it is possible necessary that they have causes.

This has an implication for The Principle of Sufficient Reason, one part of which states that everything has a cause. I've always wondered why there's no principle that goes everything has an effect.

I think this topic deserves a separate thread: Are there things that have no effect? If yes, all is well, but if the answer is no, prayer (& wishes) must have an effect i.e. they, in principle, should work.

Hi Jack.

The Law of Attraction, on superficial examination, seems to square with mathematical reflection transformation (what you are is reflected back to you by the mirror of reality). Kinda like an echo: If I shout "go to hell", the echo will reply "...to hell", "...to hell" and if I scream "I love you", the echo responds "...love you", "...love you".

Aside: Isn't it interesting that an echo truncates sounds?

Reminds me of the question "is the glass half-empty or half-full?" Depends on one's point of view, no? In essence, reality is what it is, it's constant, but depending on one's mindset, it appears different, even to the extent that these impressions are contradictory.

Thanks a ton.

There's a lot to take in in your post.

The problem with paradoxes, basically contradictions, is that it makes any logical system in which they appear trivial (every proposition, including any and its negation, is true per ex falso quodlibet).

Does this mean that, despite denying it, vehemently, we're actually using some version of paraconsistent logic?

Most, if not all languages spoken on earth were invented or came from someone's imagination. So you think that languages need not correspond to reality then? That they would not correlate to anything physical?

This has to mean something; it can't be ignored, oui? — Sir2u

Languages are used to describe something i.e. they aren't invented in a vacuum. There are two aspects of this whole description process:

1. Things/objects: In this we're at full liberty, naming can be done in whichever way we fancy e.g. water could've been assigned to the word "dex" or ",loi" etc. Naming needn't possess a rationale.

2. Patterns: We have no choice in this regard. If what goes up must come down or if rolling stones gather no moss, then that's how we have to say it is (assuming we're concerned about truth). These patterns are not invented by us, they're out there, independent of us. The universe exhibits mathematical patterns and these weren't imposed on the universe by us with the aid of language.

May the best strongest man win!

Strength in numbers.

Who, in their right mind, will want to dare to contradict a frenzied mob of armed men (women and children) screaming for blood!

Your frustration may be due, in part, to unrealistic expectations. When I was young, I learned the hard way that I was a perfectionist, who couldn't deal with his own imperfections. As you grow older though, you learn to lower your expectations. Especially in Philosophy, Ideals are an impossible dream. Ambition is good, in moderate doses. :cool:


"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?" ___Robert Browning — Gnomon

It's quite possible that you're right on the money. I am kinda sorta perfectionist, although looking back I see no evidence of it in anything I've been involved in. I'm sloppy and lazy, always looking for shortcuts and cheat codes if you know what I mean.

Let's put this discussion back on track. A while ago, that's a coupla moons, I came to the conclusion that being unsure/uncertain (skepticism) makes decisions impossible for, as per my own thoughts on the matter, decision-making can only be done based on propositions being either true or false (not both or unknown or neither).

Aporia, puzzlement, is a state when the truth of some relevant propositions are undecidable (truth value unknown) and that's supposed to be a good thing in re making good decisions.

As you can see these two don't jibe with each other: on the one hand knowing is better than not knowing (2^nd paragraph above) as decisions can only be made knowing what's true and what's false and on the other hand, there's this belief that we make high quality decisions when we're confused (aporia, 3^rd paragraph above).

These two antipodal views both makes sense and does not is an instance of aporia (for me).

Can you help clear up the matter for me?

Yeah, yeah!

It is a horrible fact of life that the apparently-devout can participate in such terrible atrocities. But I regard this as an indication of human weakness, rather than as anything intrinsic to spirituality. Recall that many of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were committed for political or nationalistic causes. Humans are capable of corrupting anything. — Wayfarer

:clap: Magnifique!

A bad workman blames his tools!

To be fair, many religions are pragmatically-challenged i.e. many of their injunctions are quite simply undoable, clearly beyond the reach of (say) 90% of people. One could even say that to be a person of faith, one has to be superhuman. So much for Nietzsche and his übermensch, supposedly beings that emerge from the mortal remains of God. :chin:

Infinite series are a staple in math; some of them are fundamental to calculations of certain extremely important constants such as $\pi$, $e$, $\gamma$, etc. In that sense and to that degree, they seem vital to mathematics.

On the flip side, they violate our intuitions and generate paradoxes (re Zeno's paradoxs).

I guess we have to do what we must do: look the other way when $\infty$ up ends our world and act as if it never happen(s/ed).

You should thank God on your knees! — EugeneW

SILENCE, YOU PEASANT!

What if knowledge gets to us?

We seem to be under the (false?) impression that knowledge is static/passive, that it just sits there, motionless, waiting so to speak, for someone to come and "pick it up".

Memes, knowledge is memetic (oui?), are active i.e. they exhibit intentionality, like all life - they seek hosts to multiply in and mutate under selection pressure, transforming themselves into powerful ideas that then metastasize, like malignancies, infecting the whole of humanity. I hope the relationship is symbiotic, fingers crossed.

I'd like to do a study on how many people have fought/died for (an idea).

Sorry, rambling. Do forgive me, if you can.

Be strong!

Do you feel the strength now within you? — Hanover

No! :grin:

I have brain damage. Sorry OP, can't help you. :grin: :point: Risus Sardonicus!

divine inspiration — Edward235

Afflatus (sounds gassy, I feel bloated).

Your line of thought would end at a point that's both intriguing, comforting and, simultaneously, disturbing. The Old Testament describes, in exquisite detail, what blind worship leads to, what absolute power and authority utlimately transforms into (a megalomaniac).

At the end of the Old Testament, is there a line that reads: Don't Do That! referring to what was recorded in it? There should be one I suppose. We could sleep a little better, oui?

What if someone, discreetly enough, scracthed that line out for reasons lost to history? Don't Do That! :smile: :wink:

Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. — StreetlightX

:up: Intriguing. An example, if it's not too much to ask.

Why is omnilogical not a God attribute?

Perhaps if it is, there really would be no way tell the difference between God and a supercomputer (super AI?), programmed to be always and perfectly logical.

I want to bounce this off of you guys & gals.

Suppose I can't lift a stone weighing 30 kg.

So, I take a sledegehammer and break this stone into 3 pieces, each weighing 10 kg.

I now lift each of the 10 kg pieces one by one. I can manage 10 kg.

Question: Did I lift the original stone weighing 30 kg?

Some have thought it relevant to include Buddhism into a discussion on boredom. I second that. After all ennui is basically a state brought on by pointless repetition and samsara (death-rebirth cycle) is precisely that: a circular path that ends at the beginning only for us to go through what we've already gone through, in all likelihood, countless number of times.

Nirvana then is the frantic wish, a desperate effort to terminate a process that gets you nowhere.

That said, people have tremendous fun riding a merry-go-round and many dances have a circular format. I don't get it. Samsara, carousels, same thing! One is enjoyable, the other tedious and even painful.

A Sisyphusean nightmare!

:up: Arigato gozaimus.

Not a clue what you're talking about ... :yawn: — 180 Proof

:lol:

It IS of course about money. — Olivier5

How?

The best thing about the Ukraine war: It's not about money.

The worst thing about the Ukraine war: It's not about money.

You mean a philosopher is a computer? — EugeneW

DOES NOT COMPUTE! = APORIA!

What do you eat? :grin:

My takeaway from the post you linked to:

1. Form vs. content. Very important concepts as far as I can tell.

2. (Over)simplify. I like the sound of that. Very mathematical. In a gravitational equation the sun which can swallow up a million earths is but a point. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

If I've missed anything, do lemme know. :up:

the use of aporia by our beloved leaders — EugeneW

:lol: I don't wanna talk to you!

Aporia can be interpreted as a state of readiness (imagine athletes at their starting positions in a race, legs cocked as it were, read to sprint at the signal to do so) to learn. A philosopher then is just a student, an eternal pupil, alway learning, but never, ever completing the process of absorbing information and processing that into knowledge and, ultimately, wisdom.

Maybe Einstein was a closet magician, pretending to be a mere scientist. He often attributed his curiosity about Nature to its inspiring "awe & wonder". But, instead of trading on occult mystery, he revealed the smoke & mirrors that had long concealed the underlying magic of reality. :cool:


One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."
___Albert Einstein — Gnomon

Clearly, awe and wonder is an emotional experience even if brought on by the application of cold, unfeeling rationality.

In my childhood days, I recall quite enjoying the experience of utter bafflement even though it was brought on by the simplest of things (I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer). As an adult, that primal joy has been replaced by annoyance, anxiety, and anger. I remain as perplexed as ever, but I now dislike it, it's not fun anymore.

understanding — 180 Proof

What's understanding?

Aporia, whatever else it might be, gives me the impression that it includes, as part of experiencing it, the grasp of the major (and minor) aspects of a problem at hand. The end result of a philosophical analysis terminating at two points:

1. The assumptions/presuppositions (where did we begin?).
2. The methodologies employed (what technique are we using?)

My hunch is that once a (real/true) philosophical analysis is complete, what we end up with is

1. A list of unknowns, some of them probably unknowable.
2. A critique of our methodologies.

This end point is, in my humble opinion, aporia, literally meaning "difficulty in passage". We're stuck so to speak.

My two drachmas in the agora's wishing well:

1. illusions of knowing (i.e. not to know that one does not know)

2. understanding 'one does not, perhaps cannot, know completely / with certainty (i.e. an intractable perplexity)

3. knowing what one does not know (i.e. understanding 'the more one knows also includes the more one does not, perhaps cannot, know')

The examined life pursues understanding, no? :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

I'll get back to you. Thanks.

:up: Interesting.

If ∞ does that to math, is ∞ mathematical?
— Agent Smith

Nope. It doesn't do that. That's a linear assumption, NOT an axiom. It's not a proof. It isn't part of mathematics at all. It's just a belief held by some people with big egos and funding to defend. — SkyLeach

Can we do math with $\infty$? Try some basic operations (+ × ÷ -) on it and check what happens.

Ask almost anyone to describe a leprechaun or an elf, maybe even an angel. I bet they can do it.

These are words that are used to describe things, whether concrete or abstract. Math is used to describe the properties of the universe and uses words such as inches, meters, degrees, numbers. None of which appear magically in the world but all are just as "real" as a faerie. — Sir2u

I'm not sure. Are we talking past each other?

An invention, in my view, is essentially imagination based. Ergo, what's invented needn't correspond to reality (unicorns, leprechauns, fairies don't exist). If math were also an invention, the same would be true - nothing mathematical would have any physical correlate so to speak.

This, however, isn't the case. Mathematical objects do correspond to things in the real world (mathematical theories in physics). This has to mean something; it can't be ignored, oui?

The Form of infinity can perhaps be deduced from its definition: nonterminating, endless. Basically, infinity is that which can't be completed, from a task standpoint.

I didn't know Plato had rejected infinity. Why did he do that, may I ask? One reason, according to an article I read, for why infinity was avoided like the plague by most mathematicians & philosophers for much of history was because it generates paradoxes, one of which is part = whole e.g. the set of odd numbers (a part) = the set of natural numbers (the whole).

One way of avoiding infinity is to use arbitrarily large but finite numbers; so, for example, if you find yourself having to do caclulations with infinity, you could instead use a googol or a googolplex. So says a book on philosophy on math I read last month.

Agent Smith is a lot brighter than he seems at times. Humor him. :roll: — jgill

Hey! :smile: You didn't answer my question. So, yeah.

I don't think one has to be an infinite being to simply understand the idea of "no end" — Gregory

You have a point. Hadn't thought of it that way. Nevertheless, it does strike me as odd that the brain/mind can conceive of something (infinity) that isn't physically instantiated (implications in re empiricism). Infinity is arrived at via pure deduction (rationalism & knowledge).

You haven't made an argument, you've made a statement. — T Clark

Why do you say that?

You don't seem to understand how this whole justification thing works. — T Clark

Why? How does justification work? Pray tell.

You don't seem to understand how this whole philosophy thing works. — T Clark

Teach me how philosophy works.

I don't have to prove it exists. You made the claim. You have to provide the justification. — T Clark

Well, I did, didn't I? I know of no actual infinities. Do you?

Perfection, though here meant as an objective attribute, can also be subjective. When one is in love or is it more appropriately described as infatuation?, you decide, the object of one's love is supreme perfection. It appears that perfection is indistinguishable from an inability to recognize flaws! They are, for all intents and purposes, identical.