1995, University of Minnesota — 180 Proof

:up: Good to know there are highly qualified folks around here!

This :point: $\to$ and this :point: $\leftarrow$ is/are (an) arrrow(s)

$\to$ Conscript $\leftarrow$.

Sic vita est, sic vita est.

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Neti, neti! Please continue mon ami, please do! Take me/us for a ride in your fancy car. I'm so thrilled.

Sorry, I'm done. A basic math course might help.

Then again, it might not. — Real Gone Cat

No problemo! Bonam fortunam homo viator!

cog-sci master's degree — 180 Proof

Wonderful! Which year, if I may be so bold as to inquire?

a matter of taste. — 180 Proof

This is a profound statement! Excelente!

Nevertheless, I believe there's a very good reason why we like meat! The tongue is no fool, oui monsieur except that when it comes to poisons, once you can taste it, it's goodnight Vienna! Maybe we're missing something here, si señor?

Yeah, you don't see — 180 Proof

:up:

Dumb question. :sweat:
A mind (i.e. minding) is what a sufficiently complex brain does. That's how I know (re: cog-sci master's degree). Read D. Kahneman. Ciao. :yawn: — 180 Proof

I see; so if I drive, play golf ( :grin: ) and eat pizza, I'm 3 people? :sweat:

:rofl:

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

Nice, Tim Toady!

Am I correct to conclude that your (whosoever's) theory is basically that the cosmic wave is simply a summation of identical but smaller (re geometric similarity) wavelets?

Which theory, yours/mine, is "better"?

Cognitions, subcognitions and metacognitions. — 180 Proof

How do you know that these are not just what the mind does like how I eat, work, sleep, etc.? Good question? :snicker:

In some cases, clarifying the situation may lead to our no longer being interested in resolving an issue or no longer finding that project meaningful or coherent. In other cases, I think real progress is made. The stories we tell about the stories we tell can get leaner, more efficient, and leave less out — Pie

:up: Agent Smith makes a note of that!

When does a thread cease being a conversation and become a comedy? — Banno

When the thread loops back to the starting position, Sisyphusean style. Going round in circles $\to$ confusion. The point to philosophy is to realize that and, at some point, cease/desist the search for the orbit closes in on itself (back to square one). Que sais-je?

Solvitur ambulando. — Diogenes

If the mind is divisible, show me the pieces its divided into!

The Felicific Calculus (re Jeremy Bentham): The mathematization of ethics.

We know the amount of water in the tank changes by −1,000 every day, and we need to subtract that 3 times (to go back 3 days), so the change is:

−3 × −1,000 = +3,000

Try something else/new. I don't get it! :groan:

There's a point at which further demands for proof lead only to the ridicule of the skeptic. — Banno

Too skeptical (areum mediocritas). Nevertheless, if someone is so enamored of their proof, go the whole nine yards, si señor? In for a penny, in for a pound, yes?

Or too weak a logic to state, peut être — Olivier5

That is a possibility I can't rule out, monsieur. Apologies.

And why not? — Olivier5

That is just too obvious to state, oui monsieur?

the majority is fine with conscription — Olivier5

That seems to be a contradictio in terminis. Nobody's fine with forced enlisment into the armed forces. Conscription, if it happens, implies the country's on the verge of defeat - such deeds occur on smaller scales too (fractals) and is one of the hallmarks of desperation (use your imagination).

The words "positive" and "negative" have connotations good (ethical) and bad (unethical). Do these auxiliary meanings have mathematical origins or is there some other nonmathematical explanation as to why?

We could in a sense treat negative numbers as demonic/diabolical/evil numbers for this reason, oui? Are there any physical constants apart from the charge of an electron that are negative?

I'm only surprised that there are encyclopedia entries on mnemonics but not on "lemonics".

Memory research has been going on since Hermann Ebbinghaus (google) but the emphasis has been on remembering rather than forgetting, a poor memory being treated as a disability. I was hoping to do the same thing for forgetfullness as some have managed to do for LGBTQ.

There are probably many reasons to live; happiness, sensu lato, being the most powerful justification for wanting to (continue to) exist.

That out of the way, if the question is aimed at antinatlists who recommend nonexistence then the answer is rather simple: death/dying is painful and given how hyperalgesic antinatalists are death i.e. suicide isn't really an option for them. Remember that nonexistence isn't the problem (re Epicurus) it's the transition from existence to nonexistence (dying) that is.

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Flipping (reflecting) alias rotating (turning) by $\pi$ radians is a good geometric way to grasp what negative numbers are.

Greedy assholes — DingoJones

Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas

May not be that simple though. What's the origin of avarice? What evolutionary purpose did it serve? Is it a relic of our once solitary lifestyles which now finds itself at odds with social existence? Do we wait for evolution to weed out the offending (selfish) genes? Can the mind override genetic programming i.e. can we defy human nature comprising quite a few antisocial traits? Que sais-je?

Inflation? Cui bono? That's the person/entity we havta catch!

Danke kind person!

To reiterate, negative numbers are simply a backward extension of pattern that is seen in positive numbers via the subtraction operation.

In physics, since it's essentially materialistic, negative numbers appear where direction matters e.g. in velocity (in one direction it is +, in the opposite direction it is -) or broadly speaking in vector quantities.

Another point to note:

Many (children's) books on mathematics go out of their way to provide an intuitive explanation for numbers & operations performed on them.

So -4 × 2 = -8 is easily grasped as adding -4 twice (-4 + -4 = -8), negative numbers simply being a different kind of number).

However, from the books I read -4 × -2 = 8 is rather difficult to comprehend intuitively. What does adding -4 negative two times mean? It's just a pattern that's all and nothing in our everyday experiences can be used to convey the meaning of this particular calculation to children and adults alike.

When challenged by a "true believer" to say what i "believe in", since I reject their "One True God", I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof

Sagan standard, quite popular and makes sense from the perspective of proportio divina (evidence should be proportionate to the claim).

However,

Certum est, quia impossibile (It is certain because it is impossible). — Tertullian

The intent of a lie is to deceive. To deceive, the lie has to be plausible. In other words, the probability that a claim is a lie is inversely proportional to its plausibility. The less plausible a statement, the less likely it is a lie. Ergo, Tertullian. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! :snicker:

Lemonics improves with age. Amazing, something that gets better the older you are! :cool: — jgill

:lol: Senile dementia, I'd like some of that! Thank you!

Nobody here has the right answer to the question that follows from the OP which is this:

How can we prove/disprove idealism/materialism?

Way forward:

There are two questions to ask:

1. How can we prove/disprove idealism/materialism? (vide supra)

2. Why, o why can't we answer question 1 in a way that gives some degree of closure?

Question 2 seems more important than 1.

Oh I know - consciousness hasn't been explained by any theory or any kind of scientific proof. It's just my belief science WILL explain it, and that yes mind=brain (or to put it another way - consciousness will be an emergent property of the brain). But let's leave that - I already got trashed for that on a previous thread. Actually I had two discussions and the first ended with "You have a lot to learn my friend. We eat materialists for breakfast here." Wow. On the second I had a few materialist allies.

Off road...sorry. — GLEN willows

Please proceed. Bonam fortunam homo viator!

Antinatalism is a pseudo-solution to the problem of suffering which to explicate is how to live/exist without hurting? This is, as you already know, the perennial philosophical problem (eudaimonia/the good life). Obviously, recommending death/nonexistence is to completely miss the point, oui monsieur?

You're quite a unique figure in the history of The Philosophy Forum, monsieur! I am not, just the average Joe with down-to-earth ordinary experiences here.

Anyway, brain trauma has been documented to unlock not just memories but even astounding, oddly mathematical, skills. I'm sure google will be of bigger help than me. Some kind of rewiring of our neurons must take place when for instance someone stomps on your noggin! :snicker: Can someone please hit me over the head with a baseball bat? Sounds like a plotline for a Hollywood blockbuster!

You need Lady Luck's blessings though - brain trauma is correlated with dementia (punch drunk).

Solipsism isn't incoherent unless there's a setting in which it is but Pie hasn't been forthcoming on that score.

Eliminative materialism, if I understand it correctly, is the position that there's no such thing as a mind substance or that, in the simplest sense, the mind = the brain. Note that neuorscience hasn't yet explained consciousness in physical terms i.e. the jury's still out.

Danke but, for better/worse, above my pay grade! I'll tune out now.

[...]then the human race will quickly cease to exist — Cuthbert

Which is mass suicide albeit in a way so subtle as to pass unnoticed by so-called guardians of life. Kill without killing is the right expression I believe. It gets confusing. Meanwhile in...

:snicker:

'External reality' means (roughly) that about which one might be deceived. The possibility of deception on this matter is also its impossibility. — Pie

Ok! Gracias.

I'm sincerely trying to show you why I think the claim is incoherent, experimenting with different approaches and metaphors. — Pie

How is it incoherent? I'm here, thinking, and I know that I'm thinking and that, ergo, I exist (re Descartes). I also realize that there could be a(n) (omnipotent) deus deceptor out to deceive me in every possible way, but even if he/she/it fools me in every sense and way possible, I havta exist to be thus taken for a ride. One of the many possible ways to be deceived is to make me think there's an external reality, that there are other minds, that I'm not alone when in fact sum.

Why would a blob of everything call itself a me and not a Tuesday or a trombone ? What could such a blob of everything mean by true or false, reality or illusion? There's no 'outside' or 'other' to be account for, worry about, get right, conform to. In short, there's no contrast. The night in which all cows are black. — Pie

Quote out of context, mon ami, quote out of context.

So, Starling swarming behavior is chaotic? How exactly is it so? They give me the impression of syncrhonized events/sports, the kind you see in the Olympics.