• Ayn Rand's Self-Sainted Selfishness
    ↪Possibility
    I get the 4D part of it (we reason in spacetime). What about the 5th dimension?
  • A Question for Physicalists
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover


    Interesting idea this principle of plenitude. It is a probabilistic argument from what I can tell, just like abiogenesis as I outlined it.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    Somehow that breaks my heart. Good day.
    — Agent Smith
    Okay, I think you're wrong. Don't walk away with a broken heart.
    I believe in the law of attraction.     — L'éléphant

    :lol: That's how cruel the universe is: it tears apart our delicate souls. Let us hope our children fare better than us. We're working in total darkness here; mishaps are bound to occur.
  • Material Numbers
    How could they exist if math had not been invented. — Sir2u

    Well, what about cosmology - the Big Bang Theory for example? Scientists project backwards from the knowns of the present - speed of expansion of the universe (accelerating), estimates of mass of the universe, etc. - and they find that the universe must've begun 13.8 billion years ago. Then they searched for corroborative evidence and found it as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). All these projections into the past are mathematical in nature. In other words, given humans are only a 300k year old species, it follows that the universe was mathematical way before humans came into existence.
  • Documentary on Claude Shannon

    Meditation

    Paradoxically, the same processes that are well known for exercising the body, can also be a very relaxing activity. As meditation, juggling a repeating pattern or patterns can take one's mind off the stresses they might encounter in their daily lives. Jugglers have described a phenomenon of near-disembodiment and tranquility which may come over them while juggling.[citation needed] :grin: The constant rising and falling of the objects, the regularity of the rhythms, can become almost hypnotic, and the attention of a juggler while tightly focused on the juggling pattern may seem to expand and even to "encompass the universe."     — Wikipedia
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Always bear in mind that most of the media are for profit enterprises. They are not staffed by philosophers (like that would help) or public intellectuals. Reporters, commentators, hosts, producers, etc. possess varying levels of depth and insightfulness. If a big war had broken out between Myanmar and Thailand instead of between Ukraine and Russia, the same batch of people (more or less) would have descended on Bangkok and started to report back. — Bitter Crank

    :fire:

    This is what people call either-or thinking. Media oulets/organizations seem to think that it's either entertainment OR information (the exclusive OR). Logicians, since ages, knew/know that it (news) can be made both entertaining and informative (the inclusive OR).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    just to show how silly it’s getting — NOS4A2

    :up:
  • Ayn Rand's Self-Sainted Selfishness
    ↪Possibility
    How is reason(ing) 5 dimensional?
  • Last Thursdayism
    information — Benj96

    Is it possible to prove that the amount of information we have just won't fit in a (last) Thursday?
  • Original Sin & The Death Penalty
    Why not make her, and her descendants, pure evil? — EugeneW

    :fire: Package deal or it's more evil to let someone not only do bad things, but also make him/her feel guilty for doing them; knowledge of good being a sine qua non for that. :naughty:
  • Original Sin & The Death Penalty
    I do not see the merit to limiting myself to only Judeo-Christian Theology, — SatmBopd

    Perhaps a mashup, blended Whiskey, in the spirit of eclecticism!

    What you did was draw a parallel between human history in re morality and the biblical story of A&E. That's not what I asked.
  • The Holy Ghost
    ↪charles ferraro
    :up: How could anyone not have seen that? It's obvious now that you explained it.

    The Father, The Son, Plain as the nose on your face, The (Mother) Holy Spirit!!!
  • A Question for Physicalists
    I wouldn't really say that chance is ignorance, but it's more like the way that we represent our ignorance. So for example, if I do not know the cause of something, I might say it was a chance occurrence. In this case, what "chance" represents is the fact that I do not know. But it's a misleading usage, because it creates the appearance that I do know the cause, and the cause is something called "chance". — Metaphysician Undercover

    Well, I can think of chance as a legitimate explanation.

    Here goes nothing. I'll use the genesis of life to illustrate.

    The ingredients for life, all the necessary chemistry, were all present in the oceans of the earth roughly 4.5 Gya. These life molecules were randomly distributed in the water. It so happened that some of these biomolecules came to be at the same place, in each other's vicinity, and they interacted in the right proportions to produce the first life. The rest is history.

    Note this is knowledge and not ignorance.
  • Material Numbers
    Actually, you are right and wrong. Could something be described mathematically if math has not been invented?
    Colors have always existed, drab brown being one of the worst ever imagined. But until someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pantone 448 C. Could it be possible that the same has happened to numbers?
    We now use math to describe the universe, but we had to invent the math(numbers and equations) to explain it, to make the calculations fit reality. And a lot of explanations turn out to be wrong.     — Sir2u

    I see. I'm right and wrong. Right in that the mathematical laws of nature preexisted humans, but then, this is where I err, humans had to invent the math necessary to describe these laws.
  • Does reality require an observer?
    From a (very) human standpoint, it seems that there really is no cosmic observer maintaining the universe through the act of observing it. Why? The universe has defied (human) comprehension. Evidence? Where's the Theory of Everything that, well, ties up all the various strands together?
  • Infinites outside of math?
    Are you arguing this way?:

    The set of real numbers can't be counted.
    Consciousness can't be counted.
    Consciousness is not mathematical.
    Therefore, the set of real numbers is not mathematical.     — TonesInDeepFreeze

    More or less. I'm sucker for (good) analogies.
  • John Scotus Eurigena: “The Most Astonishing Person of the Ninth Century”
    John Scotus Eriugena (proud Irishman), known for dividing reality into the following 4 categories:

    1. Nature uncreated and creating (God in creation)

    2. Nature created and creating (The intellect, Platonic ideas, our minds)

    3. Nature created and uncreating (The world as such, our bodies)

    4. Nature uncreated and uncreating (God in the end times, apocalypse)
  • Logical difference between (1.) being something and (2.) being linked to something.
    Good question!

    The Oddball's Oddball is Paul Erdős (Hungarian mathematician).

    Noam Chomsky (linguist with Erdős number 4) is connected/linked to Richard Dedekind (mathematician with Erdős number 7) through Paul Erdős.
  • Original Sin & The Death Penalty
    No. — SatmBopd

    Then we must part ways here. I go my way, you go yours. Sorry it had to come to this. :smile:

    It appears that you've missed the point. Nothing wrong with that though. Different strokes for different folks.

    Could you, by the way, formulate a coherent hypothesis around our mortality, (original) sin, humanity starting off with Adam & Eve, and the Sky Father, his ire?
  • The start of everything
    The beginning (only) makes sense temporally. The universe (only) makes sense temporally. Remove time and the question of a start is meaningless; unfortunately or not, the universe becomes unintelligible. Make your choice: either you can use Occam's broom and sweep time under the rug OR give up trying to comprehend our oh so beautiful universe.
  • Material Numbers
    ↪Sir2u
    Sorry for butting in, but the universe was behaving in a mathematical way (physics + chemistry) long before humans (biology) even entered the fray so to speak. I dunno, just saying.
  • Material Numbers
    Do you agree that COWSHIT ≠ bullshit? — ucarr

    :rofl:

    You have a point, monsieur/mademoiselle!
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    Actually I think you're right. — L'éléphant

    Somehow that breaks my heart. Good day.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    One is often misled by a word. In the case of all crises that have taken place, including the one in Ukraine, that word is "democracy". Everyone these days seem to be under the magic spell of so-called democracy. Remember North Korea is also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, DPRK for short.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    Did I not make that clear in my post? I find the law of attraction very believable, but we just don't have scientific backing for it. — L'éléphant

    You're in for boatloads of disappointment! It's probably because my experiences are very unique, not quite the same as yours I'm afraid. Rose-tinted glasses vs. sunglasses? The former just-for-fun, the latter to protect your eyes from the dazzle effect of sunlight. I tried and failed, maybe you'll have better luck! Bon voyage señor/señorita.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪L'éléphant
    So, you don't believe that the law of attraction holds? I agree. Imagine it were that simple to find happiness.

    As for the OP, a novel take on prayer and wishing wells. :up:
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    ↪L'éléphant
    We're on the same page.
  • A Question for Physicalists
    The problem being that chance/luck/randomness is not an explanation of anything, nor was spontaneous generation an explanation of anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

    I remember making a similar statement a long time ago. Harry Hindu believes that chance is ignorance and ignorance simply doesn't qualify as an explanation.

    The rest of your post :up: even though it's a tad bit more optimistic than I would've liked.
  • Praying and Wishing are Wireless Communications
    ↪Hanover


    You might find this interesting: Law of Attraction.

    It basically states that positive thoughts lead to good experiences and negative thoughts lead to bad ones.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    A particular strain of romanticism is dangerous; whether it's the whole movement itself I'm not sure.

    What am I referring to?

    The positive spin it gives to what are normally considered the bringer of misery and pain (war being the archetype) leads to people willing to kill & die (for a cause). This, I'm led to believe, is akin to brainwashing/mind manipulation of the worst kind ever. :smile:
  • Is depression the default human state?
    Is depression the default human state?

    Whether it is or is not seems debatable, but given that state we're in (mass hunger, stress, rampant disease, to name but a few of our miseries), we should be (depressed). Have you seen the global happiness index? It's not very encouraging I'm told.

    Even the country that's made happiness its national vision/mission (Bhutan) [re: happiness economics] is struggling to solve high suicide rates.

    Remember the 1% are the ones who are really, truly happy. If we compare the world population to an adult (mass-wise), male human, that works out to be roughly 680 gm, the mass of the heart. Keeping the 1% happy (our heart's in the right place)! :smile:
  • A Question for Physicalists
    Update

    1. Urine is a product of the kidneys.

    2. Jogging is a function of the legs.

    3. Thoughts: product/function of the brain? :chin:
  • Original Sin & The Death Penalty
    But human mortality came before moralized capital punishment. you just assume that our judgment of serial killers as evil is somehow a necessary law of the universe. — SatmBopd

    It is a case of extrapolation: we have a nice thing going on here (the death penalty); If I stay the course, take it to its logical conclusion, verily we're all on death row, the date of our execution being determined by factors personal and not so personal.

    I write letters to the person I romantically love.
    If you also receive letters, I must also romantically love you.     — SatmBopd

    There's nothing wrong with this argument, analogically speaking. It's a legit inference.
  • A Question for Physicalists
    ↪NOS4A2
    How much does a jog weigh? :chin: Good question. I think you're onto something here.

    Words like "jogging" were post facto descriptions of certain bodily functions i.e. they were observed and then named.

    Thinking is ex ante; the word "thinking" was coined before anyone had seen the brain (doing it).

    What do you suppose this implies?

    ↪Garrett Travers
    :ok:

    ↪T Clark
    :ok:

    ↪Gnomon
    :up:
  • The start of everything
    As usual, the beginning is obscured from view, We can only hypothesize i.e. speculate on such matters; quite unfortunate. It's as if we've awoken from a deep slumber and find ourselves in strange surroundings. How did we get here? Our story begins in medias res, the narrator, if there's one, has failed to record, much to our chagrin, the origins of our universe. Fear not, logic to the rescue - the OP, in my humble opinion, has managed to narrow down the possibilities to a handful. Deduce, abduce, induce, friends (and foes) and shed light on the matter.

    If one gives it some thought, clearly there's a paradox: per kind favor of memory, the past should be something we have a handle on, the future being uncertain. Yet here we are...bewildered and angry too I suppose.
  • A Question for Physicalists
    Tiny organisms, too small to be seen, which grew to a visible size were said to originate in "spontaneous generation". That was an accepted theory. This is very similar to the modern conception of abiogenesis. It seems like the physicalist's reliance on "supernatural causes" hasn't waned. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Abiogenesis is not supernatural in character. It's an explanatory model that has at its heart, chance/luck/randomness. Quite possibly God is playing cards/dice with Himself (solitaire?) or :fear: with us. Realizing full well that we're but guests in the house of God, it'd do us good to not forget that the house always wins. :grin:
  • A Question for Physicalists
    ↪Cuthbert
    Ok. Organ function, the mind being the brain doing its thing, is the low hanging fruit here. Nevertheless, it's the most sensible/reasonable way to look at mind, physically speaking that is.

    Let's do a comparison between the kidneys and the brain.

    With kidneys, there's hardly anything controversial regarding the physicality of urine formation: we understand the physiology, the biochemistry of each and every molecule in our pee, quantitatively to boot.

    With the mind, however, I haven't heard of any measurements done on thoughts: how much does a thought weigh? what is the concentration of a thought? Quantitave analysis of thinking seems impossible as the conceptual framework thereof is N/A.

    ↪EugeneW
    Indeed, that we're lacking a go-between between the physical brain and the (apparently) nonphysical mind is the nub of the issue.

    ↪T Clark
    Thanks for lesson on the history of science, but I'm sure you know that the germ theory of disease is heavily reliant on microscopic evidence. Even if microscopes predated the theory in question, it's clear that micrsocopes were the X factor.

    An emergent property, yes. The need for an additional idea/concept to connect the brain to the mind is what I find deeply intriguing. It bespeaks an admission by physicalists that there's something missing/incomplete in re a physical explanation for the mind.

    ↪Tom Storm
    Mind as the funtion of a (physical) brain just won't do. As I related to Cuthbert, wecan't neasure thoughts like we can, for instance, bilirubin, a product of the liver.

    ↪Garrett Travers
    Interesting. However, it fails to satisfy me in the most basic sense - localization of brain function is not an explanation of how physical processes lead to thoughts. To illustrate, I know, very roughly, where the features in my smartphone are located, but the truth is I don't know how they actually work.

    ↪NOS4A2
    The mind is just the body, yep, that's what a physicalist would say, but dig a little deeper and such claims tend to fall apart. See my replies to Cuthbert and Tom Storm (vide supra).

    ↪Gnomon
    Mind as an external force! Sounds interesting. I wonder if some conservation laws are violated if this were so.

    What bothers me is that physicalists find it necessary to invent new concepts e.g. emergentism to bridge what then has to be a gap between the physical brain and the mind. The question is, is there any difference between emergentism and nonphysicalism?
  • Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
    Good question OP!

    Speaking for myself, I'd say there is (should be) no difference between the two because if there is then it gives people the (wrong) idea, the erroneous belief that racism is not a prejudice i.e. it's justified. :worry:
  • Pessimism’s ultimate insight
    Boredom is a snapshot of immortality. It appears that we don't really wanna drink from the pool of eternal youth life even if we should find it! Question though, is boredom better than death or vice versa? I'm sure Sisyphus, if he were, somehow, incapable of experiencing the physical stress of rolling his precious boulder up the fabled hill, would've been, well, bored...to...death!
  • Material Numbers
    Indeed. An imagination is a simulation that is seen. With the minds eye? — EugeneW

    Indeed!
Home » Agent Smith