Comments

  • Rittenhouse verdict
    :up:

    Nobody'll waste bullets. Shootings will be more organized: kill two birds with one stone :scream: I think Chris Rock's idea will backfire.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    How in hell are you going to fight the War on Christmas if you can't afford the ammo?James Riley

    That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)
  • Humour in philosophy - where is it?
    I didn't realize till this quip, Fool, you're a closet-
    Spinozist! How absurd.
    180 Proof

    :grin:
  • Humour in philosophy - where is it?
    I'm going to have to stay up with this thread. I love to laugh, even though I don't do it much. Anyway, I think that all stand-ups (the good ones anyway), are philosophers, in their own right. Some better and deeper than others, but all philosophers nonetheless.James Riley

    :up:
  • Solution to the hard problem of consciousness
    The self-reflection, reflexive relation, the mind is capable of solves the hard problem of consciousness. A mind is capable of studying itself à la Barry Marshall (Nobel Prize winner), famous for self-experimentation. A blend of first-person & third-person perspective is doable!
  • The Strange Belief in an Unknowable "External World" (A Mere Lawyer's Take)
    If mind itself is nonmind-dependent (i.e. not ideal, more-than-just-ideal), then neither mind nor nonmind are mind-dependent (i.e. both facts are external-to-mind); therefore, nonmind is mind-invariant and not "mind-independent" (or ontologically separate from mind) insofar as mind is an aspect, or phase-state, of nonmind (i.e. more-than-ideality aka "reality" ~Spinoza, Anselm). — 180 Proof's Prolegomena for the Fourfold Root of Insufficient Reason

    :chin: Do you want to give me a stroke or what? :joke:
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    I have a rather intriguing "solution" to the gun problem in USA.

    A long time back, I bought a Gillette razor, it came with the a blade attached and two extra. I was particularly happy with the purchase, it was well within the reach of my meager income.

    A month went by, I'd used all the blades. "Time to get new blades," I thought to myself and went back to the same store. I picked up a pack of blades, took them to the counter. What happened next was one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life. The pack of blades was nearly twice the price of the razor! :gasp:

    Guns, keep 'em cheap, no problemo, but bullets should have a price tag that'll make people think twice before they dig into their pockets for some. :joke:
  • Humour in philosophy - where is it?
    A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

    The funniest of the funniest are contradictions! :chin: Is Wittgenstein taking a swipe at philosophers who take their line of work (too) seriously.

    P.S. Contradictions are hilarious when others do it. When you do it, it ain't funny, it hurts like hell!

    When a superior man hears of the Tao,
    he immediately begins to embody it.
    When an average man hears of the Tao,
    he half believes it, half doubts it.
    When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
    he laughs out loud.
    If he didn't laugh,
    it wouldn't be the Tao.
    — Tao Te Ching

    What about Democritus, the laughing philosopher (cf. Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher). My take on the two diametrically opposite reactions to life and reality is that Democritus wasn't laughing because life is funny, he was laughing because life is sad and Heraclitus wasn't crying because life is sad, he was crying because life is a funny.

    Vide infra (from the thread: Play: What is it? How to do it?)

    Suppose God exists. You ask him "why God did you make the world as it is?" He responds "I was just playing."

    What's going to be your reaction? [Choices not restricted to one emoji]

    1. :rofl:

    2. :angry:

    3. :cry:

    4. :meh:

    5. :gasp:

    6. :worry:

    7. :chin:

    8. :brow:

    9. :confused:

    10. :pray:

    11. :roll:
    TheMadFool

    I choose #1 :rofl:Athena

    If philosophy is a joke, the punchline would be...Sophia doesn't love you back dear! :smile:
  • Hell Seems Possible. Is Heaven Possible Too?
    Spilling over from my previous thread, The Religion Unmarred By Violence: Jainism, it appears that, given the various ghastly, highly-detailed, descriptions of hell (the supernatural realm in religions), it seems possible to recreate it on Earth. All that's required is to implement, make real, the various tortures described in these descriptions. It takes a moment though to realize that hellish tortures are all practicable methods of inducing pain i.e. there's nothing supernatural, ergo impossible for us, about them. Hell is possible on Earth or this world.

    Now take note of the fact that, unlike Hell which has been described in disconcerting detail, little information is available on what Heaven would look like. Aside from taking this as an indication of ignorance of what Heaven is, it could also imply that Heaven is an impossible world :sad:

    Comments...
    TheMadFool

    According to the guidebooks, Cabo Blanco was unspoiled wilderness, almost a paradise. — Jurassic Park (book by Michael Crichton)

    Unspoiled wilderness = almost paradise. What's missing? :chin:
  • Music and Mind
    I read a book on logic recently, called'The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World That Doesn't,' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author shows how logic, including the basics of maths, is a foundation 'to verify and establish the truth'. However, the following statement may be applicable to this thread discussion on music in relation to emotions:
    'Emotions and logic do not have to be enemies. Logic works perfectly in the abstract mathematical world. But life is more complicated than that. Life involves humans, and humans have emotions'.

    So, music helps soothe emotions and can be cathartic. I often find some really dark music can be cathartic and uplifting, although I do like 'The Logical Song', by Supertramp
    Jack Cummins

    And so, The Hard Problem of Logic.

    I've said this before and I'll say it again if it matters at all. Emotions, save, like always, in some cases, are usually effects. They do cause stuff (more on this later), but it's them as effects that I'll focus on. We experience all kinds of emotions - love, lust, anger, hate, and s on - and they all tend to be elicited by very specific stimuli which I'm sure I won't have to spell out as it's common knowledge. The point I'm trying to make is that there are patterns in emotions and their causes and just like there's a perfectly good reason why when we water a plant regularly, tend to its soil, and keep it in the sun, it makes for a healthy plant, there has to be or I suspect there is logic to emotions.

    I once remarked in another thread that the most vital - mission critical - components of life seem to be reflexive i.e. consciousness is bypassed or short circuited. I suppose the rationale behind this is to buy us time for, in a very narrow sense, the fight/flight response. Emotions, under this reading, are like you crying "ouch!" and pulling away your hands from a hot pan in your kitchen. This is called, I think, the spinal pain reflex. There's a very good reason for this: The "ouch!" alerts others who might be able to come to your aid and the sudden, completely unconscious, withdrawal of your hand prevents severe injury. As you can see there's a really good reason we shouldn't be thinking in certain situations. Emotions could be just like that, there's a rationale to them; it's just that evolution, in its "wisdom", has decided that there really is no point ratiocinating on the matter, react instantly and with force is the rule in the emotional sphere.

    Now to music as an cause. Play the right kind of music, I'm told, and you can make a man do anything. It sets the mood and mood has a huge part in motivation. Figure the rest out Jack Cummins, truthseeker.
  • The final theory of physics, sold here.
    What's the difference between your theory (give it a name so we can use it from here on) and string theory? If I'm correct, string theory, two/more versions of it, have been proposed as ToEs, the only problem being, none of them make any observable predictions. Does your theory entail some observables that can then be verified with experimentation?

    Let's discuss, as an aside, the issue with ToEs in general taking string theory as the index case of one. Why is it you think that a perfectly good theoretical candidate for a ToE viz. string theory is, for some intriguing reason, such that it fails in the practical sense by not being able to make forecasts that can then be checked for correctness and accuracy. Something really odd about that. It's like you have a bunch of keys, you take one, try it, it works, take another, it works to but when you try the master key it fails! :chin:
  • What would it take to reduce the work week?
    Is this sarcastic?schopenhauer1

    No! It was meant in earnest. The issues that you raise bespeak a sincerity and dedication to a certain brand of philosophy and although I might disagree with you on that, I certainly am impressed by how deeply you've thought about the issues pertinent to it. Kudos to you.

    It's off because people have no imagination and fear change. Your mortgage says, "Can't fight it!".schopenhauer1

    Yup! People are blind to the suffering they endure. I believe/suspect they've become habituated to it. I had a colleague who suffers from chronic migraine - he got used to it, so much so that he's restructured his life to factor in his rather debilitating ailment.

    For my money, antinatalism is a philosophy, a way of thinking, that has a critical role in the way the world will look in the future. Being highly sensitive to pain/suffering, antinatalists seem to be just what we need - a reliable and powerful detector of problems humanity faces - and this would prove extremely useful to us in many different ways.

    You guys have a nose for sorrow. The big issues - poverty, disease, aging, etc. - everyone notices but it takes a hardcore, true-blue antinatalist to sniff out the smaller but no less painful...er...difficulties we face. Keep up the good work.

    Good day!
  • What would it take to reduce the work week?
    What a question! What a question! @schopenhauer1, I'm in awe at the breadth and depth your concerns. I have no problem imagining people raising issues that are, well, plain as the nose their faces but this matter of the workweek, only a person to whom details matter and who's genuinely interested in the welfare of people will notice. You're the real McCoy, I can tell you that. You should stand for president.

    If you ask me, there's something horribly wrong with the 5 day workweek and 2 day weekend format. It seems to have been copy-pasted from a divine, Godly, work scehdule. God, as we all know, is omnipotent and we, lowly mortals, are, as far as I can tell, not! Something's off, don't you think?
  • Music and Mind
    Hence a thread about music, or a thread about poetry. Most advertising for example is deliberate nonsense because it aims to bypass the logical analyst and appeal to a nonlinguistic non rational aspect of humanity. You surely do not claim to be unaffected by anything but logic?unenlightened

    I'm always gonna be what people, derisively call, a wannabe. I think I'm a character simulator, I think such programs (I consider myself one in The Matrix :joke: ) are known around the world as actors.
  • Music and Mind
    I am not saying that logic and rationality aren't important because they are essential, but it does not mean that anything beyond that is 'incomprehensible nonsense to our minds. The various functions include sensations, rationality, emotions and imagination or intuition. Music appeals to parts of us that are not just logical but are important, especially the realm of emotions. Some people like very emotional music, like romance or possibly sad aspects of love.Jack Cummins

    How right you are Jack Cummins! It all depends on how you define stuff, I mean words. If I play around with the meaning of "comprehension" and "sense", we could very well comprehend and see sense in almost any damn thing we like. I propose a motion. Redefine "comprehension" and "sense" in a way that does justice to the true extent of human cognition and experience.

    By virtue of endless repetition, we've begun to automatically associate comprehension and sense with logic, it's been drilled into us and we're now so habituated to thinking this way that no one, perhaps some, really asks if there's any necessary connection, a rationale to, this linkage.

    Perhaps, taking a page out of David Chalmers' views on consciousness, the inability of logic and rationality to cover the whole gamut of human thought and existence, also reality itself, should be dubbed The Hard Problem Of Logic. :grin:
  • Jurassic Park Redux
    [...] But you cannot recall a new form of lifeErwin Chargaff (Epigraph of the book Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton)

    Chargaff seems to have regretted his major contributions to the science of genetics as is clear from the tone and content of his quotes; you can be find them in his Wikipedia page (click the link for more). For him genetic engineering was mankind overstepping its mandate. His point was that humanity has no idea what it's getting itself into. A real-life repeat of Victor Frankenstein's disastrous experiment with nature's mechanisms, exclusively divine domain is a possibility that we can't rule out. We need to tread carefully, this is treacherous, unmapped territory. Even the smallest mistake can have undesirable consequences.

    Maybe Chargaff is overreacting to the situation. I dunno! Only time will tell...as is always the case.
  • The dark room problem
    It's muddled thinking that paves the way to the biggest breakthrough. Together with fuzzy logic. It's an explosive cocktail. Fuzzy mudCartuna

    Best leave it on the backburner for the moment. Good day.
  • The dark room problem
    I dunno. Just a vague idea regarding that but it's probably nothing. Muddled-thinking at best.
  • The dark room problem
    Well, take it up then...Cartuna

    :ok: whatever you mean.
  • The dark room problem
    Keep what up? I haven't done anything that's worth...keeping up. :chin:
  • The final theory of physics, sold here.
    @Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay

    Regarding your ToE, what about it makes you unhappy? I suppose it explains everything but I'm sure, actually half-sure, that you might have some personal grievances against it. It may not, that is, be what you'd hoped for. There must be something in it that you wish wasn't and, conversely, there must be something not in it that you wish was in it.
  • The dark room problem
    I don't think what I say matters anymore.
  • Rittenhouse verdict
    The Rittenhouse case is a one-of-kind/unique/special case. One white boy guns down three white guys, one lives to tell the tale and it's about racism against blacks. With all due respect for the fallen and wounded (RIP Joseph Rosenbaum, RIP Anthony Huber, and RIP Jacob Blake. :flower: for Gaige Grosskreutz)I have to admit I like where this is going. Abraham Lincoln would've approved.
  • The dark room problem
    There is no sensible reply. How would that look like? Untill now, hidden variables are just an assumption. But more "satisfying" than the orthodoxy rulingCartuna

    Sometimes truth is not all that matters, plus most truths are, well, boooooring! Isn't that why the fantasy genre is doing so well in the video game market? Between truth and fun, no one in his right mind will choose the former. Truth! Bah!
  • The dark room problem
    Alas, I'm too uneducated to compose a sensible reply.
  • The Reason for Expressing Opinions
    I mentioned this before but I'll do so again.

    Right - Truth Paradox.

    The desire to be right bespeaks a respect and admiration for truth. To be annoyed when you're contradicted/dismissed implies that you don't care about the truth.

    Everyone wants to be right and everyone goes off the deep end when they're told they're wrong.

    We both value truth and don't value it.
  • The dark room problem
    LK is rather narrow-minded. If reproducibility were the norm, a lot of science wouldn't exist. Stuff being reproducable is a methodological imperative narrowing scientific knowledge. Adhering strictly to it inhibits scientific progress. "But it has to be reproducable". The big bang would be a miracle. And it is a miracle!Cartuna

    A point well made. However, I'm led to believe that there are other ways - scientifically valid ones - to verify that the Big Bang actually happened. Miracles, like the Big Bang CMBR, should leave a trail of bread crumbs we can use to reconstruct it. Such is lacking or so I'm told.

    God can interfere by means of hidden variables constituting the wavefunction. He could make wavefunctions in the atmosphere collapse in a controlled way to make a lighting flash strike you. I don't think he does though. He probably just leaves us alone.Turning water in wine is more complicated. The watery wavefunction is not fit. He just can't make winey atoms appear next to water ones.Cartuna

    I thought that was a open-and-shut case: the hidden variables question i.e. there are none and QM is complete in its probabilistic qualities.
  • The dark room problem
    I’ve said that it is only a “problem” premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of Friston’s Bayesian approach.

    Banno is trying to do his usual thing of causing mischief and standing innocently on the sidelines.
    apokrisis

    :ok: Good to know. Thanks.
  • The dark room problem
    Hi. Do you see any metaphysical errors in the dark room problem?
  • The dark room problem
    I think it's a question of the reliability of the evidence. One of the key features of miracles is that they're not reproducible. The Stern-Gerlach experiment is. They were both mysterious at some time, but the latter was reproducible, and therefore credible.Kenosha Kid

    Aye! Aye! The alleged miracle must be, as scientists say, reproducible and before that vetted carefully for reliability.

    It's just that miracles, the religious kind, bespeak two human tendencies:

    1. A rather scientific bent of mind. Lawrence Krauss (physicist) remarks in an interview that scientist's go to their workplaces with one and only one aim - prove their colleagues wrong. This I read to mean that scientists are on the lookout for disproving counterexamples to existing, universally endorsed theories (scientific miracles) like Einstein's relativity for example.

    2. Attributing any such counterexamples to existing theories, scientific and otherwise, to the divine. This is the point of contention between science and religion. Scientists would consider any modified hypothesis that has god(s) in it to be inordinate/inappropriate, preferring rather to modify/replace the theory that's been disproved with another that fits the new data but still minus god(s). I guess science is in the business of answering how? questions rather than why? questions and saying a miracle is god's doing doesn't tell us anything at all as to how god did it?

    I digress I suppose but the human proclivity for miracles, something that has, as far as I can tell, a high surprisal quotient, seems to contradict the dark room problem's predictions. That's itself a shocking revelation, right?

    The free energy minimization theory is incorrect then, no?

    I wonder what this has to do with a theory of everything vis-à-vis psychology.

    There's no need to reply to my post. I feel it's a tangent to the main issue.
  • The dark room problem
    There's nothing sweeter than an observation that doesn't fit the model.Kenosha Kid

    That's why, in my humble opinion, (religious) miracles are a scientific obsession and yet if you look at what Hume says - a miracle should only be believed if its falsity is even more miraculous - it would seem that scientists are extremely reluctant, even openly hostile, to give due consideration to miracles (basically counterexamples to the laws of nature). I just don't get it.
  • Music and Mind
    You have told me that something which I have said is 'silly' but I need you to specify what, before I can think about itJack Cummins

    Beyond logic, Jack, there maybe something but it would be incomprehensible nonsense to our minds.
  • Is 'information' physical?
    This :point: He = masculine pronoun OR Helium.

    He took the pen. There was He in the tank.

    The information has changed (man to gas) but nothing physical has (He is still He). Clearly this is in violation of some physical law IF information is physical?
  • The dark room problem
    I dunno why I wrote what I wrote. It felt like the most reasonable standpoint given how the dark room problem is set up.
  • Who is responsible for one's faith in humanity?
    faith in humanitybaker

    Globally, I see tremendous strides made in the moral sphere. Local conditions may vary. So yeah, I'm gonna wait a little longer before I cast my vote lest I have to eat my own words, adding insult to injury. :grin:

    Maybe think globally, act locally! :lol:
  • The dark room problem
    I have no idea what you're trying to say Cartuna.
  • Music and Mind


    That's just silly Jack. :grin:
  • The dark room problem
    I'm sure there is some dark room in which burgers are smellingly inviting you.Cartuna

    Why do you care?
  • Looking for advice to solve an ethical conundrum
    Have you heard of Protagoras?