:ok:

Really, Smith? This low you go? — baker

:joke:

Colored spectacles. I'm fallible!

Name 3 examples of such sages. — baker

Do your own homework! :grin:

How is probability calculated?

E = Event

n = number of outcomes that satisfy E

N = All possible outcomes (sample space), each outcome equiprobable.

The probability of event E = P(E) = $\frac{n}{N}$

Take a 6-sided die. It has the numbers 1 through 6.

P(7) = $\frac{0}{6}$ = 0 = 0% i.e. it is impossible to get a 7 from a 6-sided die.

Thích Quảng Đức (Vietnamese: [tʰǐk̟ kʷâːŋ ɗɨ̌k] (listen); 1897 – 11 June 1963; born Lâm Văn Túc) was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963. — Wikipedia

:fire: :groan: :cry: :scream:

Word salad. — Banno

:snicker:

IMO, 'folk psychology' from early metacognitive development: magical thinking + anthropomorphization as we – babies – develop a 'theory of mind' and, as a refinement of instinctive false-positive pattern detection, gradually learning to differentiate intentional agents from non-agents (e.g. puppies from stuffed teddy bears ... people from 'talking trees'). — 180 Proof

Nice! You mean to say religion is infantile, a case of arrested (mental) development! What puzzles me is this: adults don't believe in Santa Claus, that he lives in the north pole, that he has flying reindeer, and that he visits all the children on Earth on Christmas, and yet God, they cling to even till dotage and at death.

There's a pattern I sense in theism in the modern world:

Childhood (ignorance/theism) $\to$ Adulthood (knowledge/atheism) $\to$ Old age (fear/theism). It's the god sandwich/burger (theism on top and below, atheism betwixt).

An alienated worker is someone who isn't able to participate in society except only as a means of production; you won't see him in cinemas, amusement parks, restaurants, sporting events, you get the idea; this usually happens because an alienated worker is underpaid, able to only satisfy his needs but not wants. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the alienated worker is at the base of the pyramid (he's simply not dying, but definitely not living).

Is it the state's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen to workers? Does the solution - enforced by the state - involve impinging on rights that are critical to a vibrant society and economy? It probably does i.e. the state is faced with a dilemma (damned if you do, damned if you don't). It is then time to put the system that gives rise to this vexing between-Syclla-and-Charybdis scenario under the microscope - it might need to be scrapped/modded in order to escape between the horns of the dilemma.

No problem. That colloquial "why" translates to a more precise, non-intentional, "how" – How did this universe begin? How has this universe developed to its present observable state? etcetera. "Why" requests motives / goals / interpretations (i.e. subjectivity) "How" requests explanations / processes (i.e. objectivity). — 180 Proof

:fire:

Why :snicker: do we attribute intentionality to things? Is there a known psychological concept that explains our proclivity to at all times include what is essentially a conspirator [god(s), spirits, etc.] in our explanatory hypotheses? I can think of two: paranoia & pronoia. People back then, during the times of proto-religion and religion proper, were scared to bits I suppose. Someone's out to get us/me! :fear:

Question Chicken-and-Egg Problem

Define "question".

The above command can be rephrased as a question: What is a question?

This, as you can see, is itself a question but that would mean you already know what a question is (you're asking one).

You can't define "question" without knowing what a question is but you can't know what a question is without defining "question".

Just changed it to 'unsafe' as in if feels unsafe to reassess the source of values and identity in this way. — Tom Storm

Confusion has its merits, oui monsieur? Let sleeping dogs lie.

ontologically dangerous territory, — Tom Storm

Godspeed!

Mathematics can't make sense of fluid turbulence! :snicker:

Anyone have an idea why?

Is this a case of the nonmathematical nature of reality or is it just that we aren't smart enough?

:smile:

So "why does the universe exist?" is a nonsensical question to you. What if I say that the question only seeks an explanation and that doesn't necessarily involve a creator deity as described by religions?

Well, what is a parent, what is a child? Going by how people think and talk, and words like "puerile", "infantile", "childish", it's quite obvious as to what a child is - mentally immature. Are we, human adults, mature (enough) in the head? Are we the pinnacle of intelligence? That is to say is it possible that there is/are being(s) more intellectually able than us h. sapiens? Thus, god(s) is/are parental with respect to the human race. Hence how gods are so easily swappable with supersmart aliens.

Did a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on postmodernism. Speaking for myself, I'd say that postmodernism goes a bit too far by rejecting objectivity. What I'd have done would be to emphasize the importance of perspective, personal interpretation, points of view, but without denying/rejecting objectivity.

If one claims "anything goes" (postmodernism as I understand it) it must be clarified as to what end. If I say it doesn't matter whether I eat a slice of pizza or a burger, I mean to say both can/will satisfy my hunger. What is this "hunger" we can sate as per postmodernism by doing anything (we want)? Frankly, I'm quite puzzled.

Why is there a universe? — Gnomon

This $\uparrow$ is the million dollar question!

HOW (science) is an anagram of WHO (religion).

So we should save the elk from being eaten by wolves? — Tate

Carnivores serve an important purpose in the ecology (as of now) - they're part of the overall equilibrium between all life in the global ecosystem. Blind evolution has shaped the biosphere as such. Notice, however, that apart from a few exceptions, ethics was/is still ever/not a priority for evolution - to ensure ecological balance, it'll resort to anything, even "cruel and unsual punishment" (re spider wasps, zombie-ant fungus, to name a few).

Where humans come in is Directed evolution, the purposing of our vast knowledge of genetics and how to manage/control evolution of species so that carnivores are gradually phased out of the ecosystem but not at the cost of ecological equlibrium. This isn't something new (re dog, horse, cattle breeding). Interesting, oui?

I did mention that sweeping generalizations are fallacies. However, if one has no choice but to err, hasty generalization is the way to go! It could be the difference between life and death!

That said, legends speak of sages who had mastered the art of statistics to the point of clairvoyance!

The lion is under attack. — Landoma1

:snicker: The tables...they're forever turning aren't they? One day it's lions, the other day it's hyenas...up and down, to and fro, round and round we go!

Spot on! However that leaves us with no way of defining "delusion". All the familiar landmarks have been declared invalid. Perhaps we're all sane, no one's really non compos mentis; either that or we're all cuckoo! Would you rather be thought of as sane or insane? Both perhaps, you know, just to add that zing to our lives?

Snug in one's castle one can unself for a spell. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

If everything, as per pantheism, is god then what's the difference between thing and god? They're synonymous as far as I can tell which ain't much. Is god then simply a placeholder, like the variable x in math, for the unnamed...soldier [The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao] or a generic term that applies to, well, all in the universe and perhaps beyond, even those that have been named?

Plus, what motivates such a standpoint? Why retain the word "god" and do away with everything else that previously defined him/her? Isn't that like taking a bag of toys and emptying it, then filling it with guns? The word "god" then is merely being used for effect. Bad Spinoza! Bad!

We must resurrect Wittgenstein! :snicker:

The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including – in certain circumstances – the use of deadly force.[1]

If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification. — Wikipedia

:chin:

PSR!

False dichotomy (re: culture). — 180 Proof

:snicker: Ego is, to my reckoning, critical to survival. There has to be an exaggerated sense of self-importance in each individual if the species as a whole is to survive - nature errs on the side of caution I suppose.

It does not matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. — Deng Xiaoping

:snicker:

That said, our brains too are evolutionary organs i.e. we better listen to what it hasta say about anything, including evolution itself. The error report (religion, ethics) the brain has generated is not exactly something to celebrate about. The next phase of life: $Is \to Ought$ only intelligent beings like us can bring that about.

Only the ones with egos. — 180 Proof

This ego-bashing has gone too far! Would you rather trust 4.5 billion years of blind evolution (yes ego) or a mere 2.5 million year old brain (no ego)? :snicker:

Unselfing (i.e. open to not-self / non-identity). :point: — 180 Proof

We're, as you said, animals, primates to be precise, but to continue on as animals, apes, we must be more than animals, apes! Unselfing? We have to be more you see, being ourselves just won't cut it! Is this "affliction" exclusively human or do other animals too require unselfing?

I don't understand pharmaceutical therapy for delusions.

Clearly, a delusion is a false belief and one way of disabusing someone would be to disprove the false belief, oui? That is to say we need to argue with the person who is deluded.

If drugs can have the same effect as a good refutation argument, something's off, oui? I can't quite put my finger on it though, it's just a feeling.

A person X claims s/he is god! We sit down with him, argue and prove to him/her s/he's not! S/he no longer believes s/he's god.

A person Y too believes s/he's god. We put him/her on some antipyschotics! Promptly Y stops thinking s/he's god.

In a sense the antipyschotic medication = disproof, an argument!!! :chin:

Nice. Instead of the cave, we have the sunken ship. Perhaps the corpse of philosophy has always also been its breakfast. — igjugarjuk

Just an analogy I found apt. Nothing else to it. Like Richard Dawkins oft repeats: there are tens of thousands of religions, they can't all be right for they contradict each other. At most there's only one true religion; the million dollar question: Who got it right? The Hindus? The Christians? The aborigines? Who, damn it, who?!

Welcome back, quantum mysticism. "Collapse of the wave function!" carries us away from Earthly distractions into the cirque of the gods where ectoplasm interacts with aether causing spacetime curvature. Superposition is annihilated with a bolt from Zeus! — jgill

It is not that QM is not mysticism that interests me; it is that they seem to be so easily conflated with each other that I find so intriguing!

This makes me think about the relationship between happiness and pleasure. They’re are arguments that posit that a life of unending pleasure may not lead to a happy life. Or, conversely, that a happy life likely requires suffering.

So, it may be that happiness is more desirable than pleasure. Simple longevity may be as well. Wouldn’t it be worth it to live say 1,000 years even if 300 of those are painful? 400 years? — Pinprick

It's true that happiness is distinct from pleasure and this I think undercuts hedonism (Epicurean axiology). As far as I can tell, there seems to a great deal of confusion in utilitarianism; the brain is, after all, a complicated organ, prone to self-deception of the first order. At any rate, it's not the brain's fault given it didn't choose to be what it is - a machine that would do anything, and I mean anything at all, to survive (evolutionarily speaking that is). C'est la vie!

The brain is not for thinking; it is for survival. — Agent Smith

:snicker:

A prayer, it seems, is basically two things:

1. A request for assistance. When one embarks on some kinda a project, small or big, one realizes that no matter how good the planning, things could go wrong for various reasons. Thus we pray for assistance to the gods to ensure the success of our enterprise.

2. A request for protection. The late Ray Liotta said in an interview that he wasn't really sure if he believed in god(s) but, he went on to say, found himself praying during his trials and tribulations of which he had a fair share.

Thus prayer is an acknowledgement that

1. We aren't fully in control of our destinies (assistance).

2. Our safety and security isn't guaranteed, nor is timely help on the way from our brethren all the time (protection).

Why aren't we at the helm, in the driver's seat completely? Other people and the universe itself aren't necessarily aligned to your goals, are they now? Though protection is somewhat similar in nature to assistance, you can tell the difference betwixt them by looking at the anxiety level. You're not as desperate in one as you are in the other. Interesting, oui? :snicker:

Evil-o-meter! Conversely Good-o-meter! Psychometric tests, more reliable, more accurate, more...

the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. — Bird-Up

:chin:

Either x vouches for itself or some other y vouches for x.

If the former, circulus in probando.

If the latter, who/what vouches for y? Infinite regress.

Challenge: Avoid both horns of the dilemma!

The solution: An infallible independent guarantor aka God!

1. God is infallible.

2. The Bible is God's word

Ergo

3. The Bible is true

No circulus in probando; no infinite regress

Delusions are restricted to opposition/denial of known facts. For instance to say the earth is flat is delusional.

Controversial topics can't/shouln't be used to diagnose delusional disorders. To say that the mind is nonphysical isn't a thought disorder.

As for contradictions, it isn't a sign of madness, but it is definitely a symptom of poor ratiocination; so long as the person accepts that s/he believes a contradiction and mends his ways so to speak I see no issues.

True paradoxes (true contradictions) can be a major problem because they trivialize the concept of truth - that's what logicians say anyway (vide relativism/perspectivism - anekantavada). Not necessarily though - there's paraconsistent logic, designed for damage control (re ex falso quodlibet) in re (true) paradoxes. The idea seems to be quarantine and analysis of paradoxes if and when they arise. Psychologists/shrinks might wanna take a similar approach (too much effort?).

In addition, (true) paradoxes, if they exist, can be interpreted, from existing paradigms of thought, as the world, the universe itself as quite mad. The notion that peopls lose touch with reality (insanity) is then rendered meaningless, oui?, especially if sanity means avoiding contradictions.

Chew on that...

:smile:

Self-abnegation!
— Agent Smith
No. :rofl: — 180 Proof

:chin: :snicker: What then?