Comments

  • Thomas Hobbe's Social Contract
    Again, I am just looking for a specific country that is a good example of his theory. — Fermin
    All countries have the social contract. It's in the name "country". Look up the definition.
    Unincorporated nations no longer exist.
  • Information and Randomness
    The appearance of randomness is created by the system which analyzes, it is not a feature of the thing being analyzed. That the analyzing system does not apprehend the patterns being searched for and produces the conclusion of "random", is an indication that the system is not properly formulated for the application it is put to. — Metaphysician Undercover
    I couldn't have said it better.
    Randomness is not a feature of the thing being analyzed.
  • Our Idols Have Feet of Clay
    People are often under the impression that China is this super old civilisation like Egypt and Babylon but in fact it is barely younger than Greece. — Lionino
    Sources, please.
  • Who is morally culpable?
    In a way, everything is pointless. — Truth Seeker
    This is a very human thing to say.

    The universe does not have a "point". Existence is a given. We don't question the given, only our place in the universe. And even that question is a narcissistic notion. I say, live for the arts, the appreciation of beauty.
  • Information and Randomness
    I don't believe all information in the universe is predictable because of heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Sure 99% of things can be non random but even if the fundamental 1% is that throws a huge spanner in the works — Benj96

    I don't agree with the use of random here. Stochastic phenomena are just simply not precise (this is the word I was looking for) as an analysis. Commonly, (and I say erroneously) it is the precision upon which we judge whether something is random, or in the case of Heisenberg, uncertain. But to further judge a phenomena as undetermined is really troubling.

    If randomness is born from the very fundamentals of physics (which quantum physics seems to suggest), then even if everything from that point onwards is deterministic, explicable and predictable, the underlying origin is still random and unpredictable.

    In that case randomness would appear to trump the determined and explicable, the patterned. If we cannot know exactly where particles will appear or annihilate but only give a statistical wave function of the distribution of possible locations, that would entail a trickle up effect of integral chaos within the system.     — Benj96
    No. No one says that "random" (here I am speaking your language) occurrences are unanalyzable. The difficulty we face is with precision. All data are analyzable, but not all data can be analyzed with precision. That is the difference.
  • “That’s not an argument”
    I’m a volatile one, I admit. — Mikie

    Great! Know thyself.
  • “That’s not an argument”
    I mean, I did add that winking emoji. — Mikie

    Hah! With you, nothing is certain even with the emoji. Just so you know.
  • Information and Randomness
    ↪Benj96


    Here is a short passage:

    How does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth?

    Robert Matthews

    Asked by: Rod Lennox, Colchester

    Bound to the Earth by gravity, most of the atmosphere spins along with it as a result of friction with the ground and the viscosity or ‘stickiness’ of the different layers of air above it.

    Above 200km, however, the incredibly thin atmosphere actually spins faster than the Earth. The cause of this bizarre ‘super-rotation’ effect remains unclear, but has also been detected on Venus.
  • “That’s not an argument”
    Just fucking with you. — Mikie
    Fair enough.

    Sorry. I missed it. I was busy in another thread trying to appease the random followers.
  • Information and Randomness
    The sun rising is not an atmospheric stability nor climate stability phenomenon. Let's not conflate the cosmological with local planetary climate trends. — Benj96
    Again you missed.

    I said, "examples such as". My next statement is a generalization of the way that videos like this develops. I'll explain to you the misuse of randomness: We argue in favor of randomness whenever there is a phenomena that goes out of order, unexpected, or out of place. Randomness has become the crutch for anything that falls outside of intelligibility. Instead of just saying unintelligible, we say random. You know why we say it? Because we don't like to think that everything has an explanation, that everything has an origin. Ultimately we don't like to think that there's always something, rather than nothing. There was never a point in the universe, that the nothing existed. This is what is hard to comprehend.
  • “That’s not an argument”
    Sorry, but simply saying there is nothing wrong with it is not an argument. — Mikie
    Lol. I was making an opinion, not an argument. Taste is always an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. :wink:
  • To what Jazz and Classical Music are you listening?
    You may enjoy Rob Amster. — AmadeusD

    Thanks. This is what I could find that's co-written by Rob Amster. Yes, I like listening to that bass. I couldn't find just the instrumental.

  • To what Jazz and Classical Music are you listening?
    Here's the video of that upright bass with Adam Ben Ezra. Awesome!!

  • “That’s not an argument”
    I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with. — Mikie
    There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fallacy or saying "that's not an argument" so long as they at least offer an explanation for their comments.

    But I sometimes would call out a post and drop something like that (and not provide the reason for my comment) -- but this is only because I know that poster is smart enough to get my point.
  • Information and Randomness
    Interesting. What is characteristic of my topics? I'll admit perhaps I jumped the gun on this one but I was captivated by veritasiums video on the notion and wished to share it here.

    Please see reference link     — Benj96
    Sorry, I tried watching it. But the minute I heard the word "random" I lost interest. They were talking about examples such as the sun rising. Randomness is not the opposite of atmospheric stability or climate stability.

    I think as a community of philosophy, we've become lazy and throw here and there clichés like "randomness" and "predetermined".

    As to the characteristic of your OP -- normally they were thoughtful. Not this one.
  • Are there things that aren’t immoral but you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them?
    The moral good and bad is supposed to transcend all differences of social context. — Metaphysician Undercover
    :100:
  • To what Jazz and Classical Music are you listening?
    Listening to an upright bass.

    maxresdefault.jpg
  • Member Picture Thread
    :grin:
  • Are there things that aren’t immoral but you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them?
    Ah, well. There are millions. Millions of things make me uncomfortable, and I'd rather not be the kind of person who did them because that would be, on my account, shameful or embarrassing. These extend to no one else, even in cases that would effect someone else, attitudinally speaking. I don't want to be that person, regardless of who is effected. — AmadeusD
    I second this.

    There are actions that aren't considered immoral, but I wouldn't be that person. Rudeness is not illegal or immoral, but I wouldn't do that face to face with people.

    There are other more grievous actions that I know of. I say, no thanks.
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    I am out of time but want to say all this is very complex and it is my hope when have a good understanding of the complexity, we will gain power and avoid disaster. A lot is going on here beginning with evolution gave us some thinking power but enough to manage without a strong way to work together. — Athena

    Sis, it is not an emergency. There are always enough competing selfish interests to balance things out.
  • Economics: Transformation Risk
    deleted post.
  • Who is morally culpable?
    This has become a pointless discussion.
  • Information and Randomness
    I don't know about this OP. It is uncharacteristic of @Benj96 topics.


    The greatest degree of information is found in the most random or irrational sequences. — Benj96
    But no support for was provided.
  • Who is morally culpable?
    The moral deliberation of someone is not free from variables he or she did not choose i.e. genes, environments since conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, experiences from the womb to the present. We don't have free will. We have determined and constrained will. This is why no biological being is morally culpable. — Truth Seeker

    All design under glaze -- as a potter would say.

    "We don't have free will" has become the unscratchable design in topics like this. The misconception of this idea of free will has lead to the kind of arguments like yours. "Lacking free will", if that's even true, is not synonymous with lacking conscious volition. Deliberation is a human activity. Please consult Aristotle and Descartes. We are not automatons that has a few moves in a very limited capacity.

    What does a will even mean to you?
  • Is the Pope to rule America?
    Hello friends!

    I am somewhat concerned that a topic about politics and religion, society and religion, democracy and religion, or law and religion always starts as a complaint rather than an analysis.

    What I mean by analysis is, let's start with a close look at the primal fear of humans -- because only then do we get to understand that the idea of "father" resides permanently in our psyche. Our fear of being "alone" in the universe is embedded in our biological makeup. It is not by accident that the first humans looked up in the sky when they sensed that a dark matter was about to snuff everybody out of existence.

    'tis the truth. Work with religion, not against it.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    You seem to think I cannot refer to anything that I have not experienced. But the reference of a word is established in the language in general, not by what I may or may not have experienced. — Ludwig V

    Then you also do not understand what causal link is -- and this is what the BIV theory is pointing out.


    So when I can refer to the President of the United States even if I don't know that Joe Biden is the President. — Ludwig V
    Right sentiment, wrong example.
  • Who is morally culpable?
    If hard determinism is true, then everything that happens, happens inevitably and no one has moral culpability. — Truth Seeker
    Incorrect. I think @180 Proof has already touched on this. If determinism is true, we are destined to have an agency such that we are determined to
    consider the moral obligation of our actions. If you are a moral agent, then you are capable of moral deliberation, therefore you are morally culpable.

    There is a theory on punishment that argues that the denial of punishment to a person denies that person a moral agency, (moral agency to be the ultimate measure of what it is to be human).
  • How could someone discover that they are bad at reasoning?
    And then, suppose he does come to understand that he's bad at reasoning - what then? If he still cares about the truth, but he has come to accept that his tools for discovering or filtering truths are compromised, what should he do? — flannel jesus

    One can discover that they are bad at reasoning by bumping up against contradictions in their own thinking. This happens most obviously when others call them out on their contradictions, and less obviously when they encounter signs that their own beliefs are not coherent. One can become capable of understanding and perceiving contradictions even with very simple tools, such as an understanding of truth and falsity, and simple rules of inference like modus ponens and modus tollens. — Leontiskos

    No to both quoted posts above. I have experienced people like this in real life and I now avoid having any discussion with them, except to greet them good morning, hello, how're you doin'? And when I say discussion, I mean the topic of everyday life, let alone serious current events.

    They don't see the contradiction in what they say. They're not interested in learning or hearing about the contradiction in their statements. Mind you, when they're having a conversation, they speak with authority -- "I got bitten by mosquitos. See these bites?" I'd respond by saying -- those are flea bites, not mosquito bites, judging from the marks on the skin. She would then reason by saying, well I have a can of water standing in my yard. This is all she would hold on to for "evidence" that it's a mosquito bite. I could go on with this... you ask her, did you see any mosquitos at all? She'd say, no, but there's that standing water. :wink: lol.
  • Is self reflection/ contemplation good for you?
    It seems interesting to me (at least superficially) that some people seem to participate in philosophy primarily to understand the history of philosophical ideas over time (sometimes lingering in the classical, analytic or continental pools), while others see philosophy as an aid to personal development and critical thinking. The approaches seem quite different and seem to address different personality styles and needs. Thoughts? — Tom Storm
    Indeed. That's a very astute observation.

    Blame the movements of rationalism and mechanistic world for that bit of analytical snobbery. :wink: The farther removed the philosophy from the human touch, the better.

    The classical philosophy shouldn't be among that group, however, because they really did connect the philosophical thinking to the human nature. Aristotle and Socrates. Also, let's not forget the Stoics and the Cynics
  • Is self reflection/ contemplation good for you?
    So is self reflection good? — Benj96
    Self-reflection is good. Remember that in philosophy, the notion of the self can only be understood if at the same time we have a notion of "us" -- others. The contemplation of self is actually a modern occurrence in the history of human mind. It came later.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    As this thread is not about BIV in particular, but simulation, I will respond to the below briefly:

    If I am a brain in a vat, my claim is true, even if I can't refer to brain and vat, so long as "brain" and "vat" refer to the appropriate objects in that context. Perhaps I cannot know that my claim is true, but that's different. Actually, I don't really see why a brain in a vat cannot refer to itself as a brain in a vat. — Ludwig V
    You do not understand what "refer" means, in other words.

    I don't follow that.If it says (without evidence) that it is a BiV, then the utterance is true if that is indeed the fact. — noAxioms
    Then you misunderstand what "true" means in statements.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    Well, to quote the BiV IEP page, very close to the top:

    Or, to put it in terms of knowledge claims, we can construct the following skeptical argument. Let “P” stand for any belief or claim about the external world, say, that snow is white.

    [1] If I know that P, then I know that I am not a brain in a vat
    [2] I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat
    [3] Thus, I do not know that P.     — noAxioms

    But you did not go further into the argument. That is the opening argument for the BIV. But Putnam continues on to counter-argue that premises or claims above are necessarily false. If you're a BIV then to say "I am a brain in a vat" is false because you wouldn't be referring to a brain and to a vat. There's no reference at all! There is no causal link to make the argument sound.

    So going back to what you said in your previous post that ...

    A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms
    If it is indeed just a black-box or non-human mind being fed false information, anything that comes out of its mouth referring to anything about the physical world is false.
    Because to refer to a tree, snow, or brain, is to go outside of the BIV world yet isn't it true that we just made the argument that we are just a BIV. So, are you or are you not a BIV? You can't be both.

    The simulation hypothesis is a pitfall -- it looks attractive because it allows us to make arguments like "how do you prove we're not in a doll house?" but we fail to recognize the contradiction of the utterance.

    If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point. — L'éléphant

    If that's the point, we don't need the theory. We all experience dreams from time to time. And we know how to tell the difference. But we can't tell the difference while we are dreaming. What's so exciting about the theory?     — Ludwig V
    Actually, I take back what I said in what you quoted from my previous post. Let's start again.

    The theory posits that there are a scientist outside the BIV and a BIV. If I am a BIV, I cannot make claims like "I am a brain in a vat" because I am making no reference to the "brain" and "vat". So, if I say that sentence, it is false.
  • What is Simulation Hypothesis, and How Likely is it?
    A brain in a vat need not be a brain at all, but some sort of mind black-box. Introspection is the only evidence. A non-human mind in a vat being fed false information that it is a human living on Earth has no clue that it isn't a pink squishy thing doing the experiencing, or exerting the will. — noAxioms
    I disagree with this. In the BIV, the brain is a given. That is, human brain. Because the point of the theory is skepticism, not that we are indeed brains in a vat. If I could experience the real world, then be hooked up to a machine that simulates the same thing I have experienced, seamlessly, that I would not be able to tell the difference, then the theory has made its point.
  • Is superstition a major part of the human psyche?
    Anyways, long story short, superstition is a core component of the human psyche is the claim. — schopenhauer1
    Okay. It is a component of the human psyche. And if you read about the evolution of humans, the primal fear goes back to the prehistoric times when a lot of factors were not understood, but could wipe out their entire population.

    We never really got rid of this primal fear in us -- similar to the appendix (why do we have it?). Despite the progress that humans made in all aspects of society, the primal instinct never went away.
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

    It's not always true that it's better to stay in a difficult situation than to venture out there in the unknown because it could be worse. If you have become comfortable in a situation where you have to deal with a toxic person, it is worth trying out something else because the flip side is, you could find something better.
  • The Role of the Press
    The problem with that is that our best example of publicly funded news (PBS and NPR) is left leaning. — Hanover
    Okay, sorry to hear that these organizations have biases as well.

    What will prevail is that the supply will meet the demand, meaning that if there is no demand for unbiased or balanced reporting, it won't be in the market, at least not terribly long. — Hanover
    But there will be, and there is a demand for unbiased or all sides of politics.

    Or do you mean there will be no "mainstream" demand?

    To that I say, do not underestimate the power of the intelligentsia. They were or are in the minority, working and writing stealthily, but they get the most bang for their ideas -- they are the secret sources of the academia and scholarly studies.

    I think you should stop reading pop news articles and celebrity magazines. It sounds like you have been frequenting the unsavory crowds.
  • What did you cook today?
    ↪Lionino

    That's a good looking plate of pasta. Looks yummy. I am on the hunt for fatter fusillis.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    We don't need to prove anything to anyone and we are always good enough. I also think that being happy or finding joy is perfectly compatible with meaninglessness. Joy isn't dependent upon inherent significance, it can come to anyone for any reason. I think our experience of this has less to do with what we believe about life and more about our disposition, personality and brain chemistry. — Tom Storm
    :100:

    There are people who can work into their 80s. I mean -- as an employee. To them, I say, wow! They don't need to worry about retirement savings because they work full time until they keel over. They do not stress out over their job.
  • Is maths embedded in the universe ?
    Lakatos? — Lionino
    No. They're not that fancy. They're practicing math scholars and philosophers.
  • The Role of the Press
    This article argues that the ethical role of the media is in determining which side of a debate is most ethically correct and then promoting it: — Hanover
    The news organization does not have to listen to that article if the news organization is truly independent.

    Implicit in this argument is the additonal argument that if a news outlet doesn't adequately promote the correct ethical side, financial pressure should be placed upon that outlet to get it to change its course. — Hanover
    Public funding should be in place to support the unbiased news organization in cases of threats like that.

    This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal. — Hanover
    If the news organization believes in professionalism, they know what to do. Their judgment should prevail.
Home » L'éléphant