I don't get why you think I've claimed "the OP is about knowledge" — 180 Proof

Ok, We'll have to back up a bit. What do you think the OP wants to discuss? As far as I can tell, the OP is about holism and antireductionism, for the OP mentions, quite specifically, that the whole, some of its properties, are inexplicable as a mere sum of its parts, and such properties are added onto the whole from "above" in a manner of speaking.

♾? If I understand you, the only thing the infinity symbol in mathematics means is that the limit isn't known (thus it can't be summed) — SkyLeach

Well, all I meant to ask was whether something uncountable (an example of an uncountable infinity is the set of real numbers R) can be considered mathematical? After all, math is, bottom line, about countability (0, 1, 2, 3,...).

I didn't "bring up" anything, Smith. I recommended a book which expounds in great depth on my answer to the OP: knowledge. Clearly, as his subsequent posts exhibit, he incorrigibly lacks that "something greater". Once again, I've cast pearls before swine (re: this thread). :zip: — 180 Proof

:ok: I don't quite get why you think the OP is about knowledge.

A poor choice of words on my part.

@TonesInDeepFreeze, is an uncountable infinity a mathematical object?

1 infinity + 1 infinity = 1 infinity
— Agent Smith

Again, there is no object that is infinity (other than such things as points of infinity on extended numbrer lines). There are sets that have the property of being infinite.

That cardinal arithmetic is idempotent for infinite sets (especially for the set of natural numbers) is not really not problematic if you bother to read the proof. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:ok:

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things.
— Joe Mello
Sounds like knowledge – an explanatory process (e.g. historical, formal & natural sciences) – to me, Joe. It might be the worst cultural ratchet (racket?) we primates have come up with except for all the others tried in the last fifty millennia. Consider this (if you haven't already) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity ...

Btw, welcome to our sandbox! — 180 Proof

I believe the OP is trying to open a discussion on holism (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) and antireductionism.

I don't see why you had to bring up infinity? Is it because with infinities a part (odd/even numbers) can be equal to the whole (natural numbers)?

I like to categorize the absence of depression as being of two kinds:

1. Too damned busy to be sad. For instance, does a soldier have time to mourn the loss of a comrade in the thick of battle?

2. Genuinely happy.

Step 1: The idea of the nonphysical, from what I know, doesn't entail a contradiction i.e. it's perfectly possible, as possible as it is for an apple to be red.

Step 2: Demonstrate that the nonphysical is not just possible, but actual. This is where nonphysicalists trip up. For a universe in which the only sense there is are eyes, how do I prove the existence of something that can't be seen or is invisible?

I was going to leave her out, but I needed at least one philosopher. — Garrett Travers

Immanuel Kant would've been enough if so.

Marx is arguable, he was a political theorist, not a philosopher as such. — Wayfarer

:up:

Boredom reflects, among other things, a change in our lifestyle, speaking in terms of humanity as a whole and not as individuals although it ultimately manifests at that scale.

For most of history, our way of life has been such that it was work, work, work (gathering, hunting, farming, etc.) the whole day and then with nightfall, deep, restful sleep. Lather, rinse, repeat.

With the advent of technology, most of the physical labor we used to engage in has bee offloaded onto machines. Suddenly we began to have time off from work. What do we do with this time? This is a question that few have an answer to as this state of affairs is relatively new in human history i.e. we haven't as yet figured out what to do with our spare time. Boredom (time we don't know how to use) sets in.

Pessimistically, time when one has nothing to do (ennui) is like an idling engine (on and that's it), and we all know an idle mind is a devil's workshop. We could, to that extent, blame much of humanity's ills on boredom during which we commune with the beast, and, as it turns out, do his bidding which comes in the form of diabolical ideas, merely suggested to us as passing remarks and small hints (Stephen Norton like).

Interesting story, OP!

This rather disturbing experiment goes to show that neurons are like wires and synapses like logic gates in a circuit board. In other words, the electronic/electrical nature of our brains has been demonstrated (effectively?). That's exactly the opposite of what AI engineers have been trying to do all this time - prove the neural nature of electronic circuitry. I guess it's the same thing.

Oh, and it gets better, or worse. There's more to this story. Just going to leave it here for now — Tex

Mon ami! it is a pleasure you find yourself on this page. enjoy the show and watch my little grey cells do their thinking. — Hercule Poirot

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples
1 infinity + 1 infinity = 1 infinity :chin:

Infinity broke math. Leopold Kronecker 1, Georg Cantor 0. Sorry Cantor old chap, I'm a big fan, but Kronecker's got a point!

Your story should be adapted into an Agatha Christie murder mystery featuring the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. As far as I can tell, it has all the right ingredients for a psychological thriller, something Poirot delights in - a little problem for his gray cells to feed on! :grin:

I think such interviews are necessarily too short, too superficial, and too polite to offer any real insight into the person's religious choices, so I don't make much of the replies given in such interviews. In them, people give some (rehearsed) socially desirable answer.

To really learn what the person thinks on this matter, one would need to get to know them, spend a lot of time with them, build mutual trust. — baker

That's the whole point to anything at all. I don't see why you would find anything wrong with it.

:fire:

Align expectations with the real!. You phrased it differently last time. I liked that one better. Anyway, beggars can't be choosers! :grin: I'll take it.

Just curious, if we always do as you advise, is progress possible? Progress has (always) been, in my humble opinion, a function of dissatisfaction (dukkha): we're dissatisfied, we wanna do something about it, and then so-called progress. We're living in relative comfort (air-con, central heating, etc.) precisely because we refused to accept what reality hadta offer us - scorching summer heat and frigid winters.

Of course you're not that stupid. My apologies. Good day!

Reality doesn't make mistakes!

unrealistic expectations

@180 Proof How did you put it? Align expectations with reality? Please repeat what ya said for our collective benefit.

I quite like romanticism, if only because it gives me a glimpse of heaven, heaven itself being an ideal and thus romanticism's stock-in-trade. I know someone who would say that a false image of heaven is better than no idea (of heaven) at all (something's better than nothing). Yes, there are people like that and it's fun to be around them.

That said, the wrong idea is, sometimes, worse than being utterly ignorant (a little knowledge is dangerous).

I'm torn between these two views - I feel like an ass, Buridan's ass, fated to starve until death simply for being so god damned undecisive on matters, big and small.

Here's when I'm not responsible for my thoughts in my brain/mind/whatever! :point: When you put it there! :grin:

quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum :death: — javi2541997

:broken:

Oh, just praise that big ole, sweet, sky-baby, making on the fermaments, and killing his own kids, talking through donkeys and bushes about being worshipped, and not being gay cuz eww, hims just so sweet.

(now imagine me saying this to you in the voice of Zack Galifinakis in The Campaign) — Garrett Travers

:grin:

I'm not thinking! Seriously! This isn't thinking, I tell you, it just isn't.

Si vis pacem, para bellum:eyes: — javi2541997

Miseram pacem vel bello bene mutari! :zip:

Miscommunication (therefore misunderstanding) between people is inescapable ... I guess? — 180 Proof

1. Nothing exists;

2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it;

and

3. Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

4. Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood. — Gorgias

:fire:

Credo quia absurdum." :sweat:
In nomine Patris
et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti ... wtf. — 180 Proof

:rofl: Now, now 180 Proof, be nice to the religious nutcases! :rofl:

cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est
— 180 Proof

cogito ergo sum.
— Agent Smith

Ah, Latin classes! Good memories when I was in school.
ego sum alpha et omega, initium et finis — javi2541997

Requiescat in pace! :death: :flower:

I put that laugh down when I read something that actually makes me laugh, as your statement did — Garrett Travers

:smile: I make you laugh, huh? God has answered my prayers. Praise the lord!

But sure, in the main he's a master ranter and raver, bitter, egocentric, etc. — ZzzoneiroCosm

O how I wish that was a description of me! :sad:

serves you right :naughty: — Wayfarer

:brow:

Hehaha! — Garrett Travers

What kinda laugh is this? :chin:

Epicureanism is the philosophical platform that directly gave rise to rationalism, science, capitalism, feminism, abolition, Anarchism, Communism, Utilitarianism, Objectivism, cognitivism, and the United States among other things... — Garrett Travers

I would say all these isms and whatnot are a mere smokescreen, a blind for what's really going on under the hood so to speak. If you disagree, here's a take that may be more suited to your sensibilities: at the heart of all these points of view, these ideas, etc., lies Epicureanism.

Maybe.
No.
No. No.
:chin: Rather: cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est. (P. Gassendi?) — 180 Proof

:confused:

I'm going to be honest, I haven't been this excited about learning a piece of philosophical history in years, and I have maintained a passionate love for this tradition. I genuinely mean to say that according to what I know of history, this man was the single greatest contributor to our tradition. And his societies, the most peaceful and prosperous of the ancient world, were fucking murdered out of history. This man who laid the foundation of everything we cherish in the world from science, to free societies, I am unbelievably stricken with gratitutude for this man. And, I don't ever want to here a socialist open their mouth to me about communes for the rest of my days, I'm gonna let em have it. — Garrett Travers

Epicurus got straight to the point. Stop trying to rationalize/sublimate; he cut through all the BS/noise that most other thinkers/philosophers were going on and on about. I like him for that.

I'm persuaded, via what I've experienced and the little that I know, that the OP is on the mark. My hunch is that the history of the world, humanity especially, begins to make (more) sense if contextualized hedonically. The history of life is the history of pain & pleasure. I hope I understood the OP.

"To say there are no thoughts" (which is a thoight) would be as nonsensical as someone saying 'I do not exist'. — 180 Proof

:up: Is Wittegenstein relevant? p-zombies? Does a computer that displays the string "I'm not thinking" or plays the prerecorded message "I'm not thinking" thinking? Re: Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

When is an atom not an atom? — Constance

When your common sense goes AWOL. :up:

I apologize in advance for all the writing. — Constance

:lol: Reminds me of Socrates' Apology (not an apology; rather a demand for compensation to the gadfly of Athens for all the trouble he had to go through educatin' the youth). Good one!

@Enrique Good job! :up: