Haruki Murakami — Manuel

:100: :up:

I also like Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World and 1Q84

We even should do it. If humanity has changed through the years is due to being indifferent because of modernity. Now, it looks like no one wants to change and it leads in a loop of modernism which is so strange.

It's possible to be indifferent to anything. There are no rules to what we should believe. — Tom Storm

Good one :fire: :100:

I made the advanced machine, and soon you will experience it comfortably. However, for your wait, be imaginativer, set to cause big change, in any way you want, or change the future you in the dimensional fallout. — ghostlycutter

Interesting fact. So, accordingly to this the machine itself is developed by someone as you said I, but later on it can be useful for humans themselves. This could mean that we are free to individualism and then we are the only ones to pursue our future, but not forgetting the machine that could be like q root of our lives.

Existence in the universe is simulated in and as of the experienc-ers sense the energy source. — ghostlycutter

Interesting theories. Who or which is the subterfuge which is running our minds? Or... are we who are simulating it but we do not have awareness on it?

Colour itself is in the way our minds process information - the Magnosphere Theory is a leap to suggest that form is too. — ghostlycutter

It remembers me the imaginary colours theory of John Locke:

The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color. — John Locke.

Do you think is a physiological or physical study/aspects?

How does one florist convince another that she too has had the Direct Experience of the world as a purple rose? Locke discussed the 'Inner Light' — j0e

Agreed! This theory is so important and interesting. As you explained could come from empiricism as Locke developed. It is not only about how someone can convince others of purple rose but how the other part will accept it. This is why I guess is so important here the power of belief and beliefs themselves. There will be people that doesn’t matter how good arguments you put in the table, they will not accept it...

By using the method of pseudocode how do you define validation? — SteveMinjares

Good question. I think we achieve validation when some experts or researchers in the same topic or study (for example, the “spectrum of light”, by Isaac Newton) are a great consensus. Most of the thinkers are agree or even perfection the theory itself. This is why somehow we give validity to theories because, it convinced us.
Another good example can be the Holocaust. There are negationism about the topic for some people. Nevertheless, the consensus is huge of validation of how this dark period is proven about their existence.

Are they unfathomable mysteries, beyond human understanding? — Jack Cummins

I think yes and this is why philosophy is so interesting. I wish these topics will never been discovered or proven because it is amazing the huge number of authors have written about all of these topics. To be honest I even think that it make us feel fulfilled and happy.
Happy because it is good questioning and debating that is worthy for us.
When you look at the sky in night you feel surprised of how vast is the universe with all the starts and planets. Some would say is Big Bang, Physics, God, or even Aliens. We are free to debate of whatever despite probably we will never be able to answer some questions.
One element I like the most is the Stoneage in UK. When I see it I think: What were the thoughts of the thinkers back in the day and what did they answer?

But my question would be whether every logically structured argument must have an Aristotelian structure to be valid? — spirit-salamander

No! I like your argument and post. Nevertheless, I thought you would like some advises or tricks to use syllogisms. Sorry if I sound mean or cocky. It was not my intention.

Check this website, you will see what are you missing about, I learned a lot since the last month I currently visiting it: Aristotle Syllogisms (Rules)

What's missing here is an "if." Then it becomes a hypothetical syllogism. Without the if, there is no bridge from "want" to "must." — tim wood

Thanks Tim for the properly explanation and argument :up: :100:

Since I am German, my reasoning comes from the logic and semantics of the German verb "sollen", which translates to ought or should in English. — spirit-salamander

Could it be a problem of interpretation or vocabulary the morally bending ought?

(1) A must do X for Y to happen, and
(2) A wants Y to happen.
______________
(3) So A must do X. — spirit-salamander

I guess your syllogism is not good here because there are only two parts while a syllogism needs three:
S: subject of the conclusion.
P: predicate of the conclusion.
M: the middle term.

Nevertheless, I guess your syllogism fits the DARAPTI type:
1) The minor premise must be affirmative.
2) The conclusion must be particular.

I prefer quote @tim wood here because he is better than me in explaining syllogisms.

Interesting exercise. It remembers somehow to me the theory of Newton about the spectrum of light but you developed as the colour itself and it is awesome. But I have some questions: why the choosen colour was pink? Can we do it with a different colour?
Also what do you think about John Locke's phisology? In my thread we talked it about: Imaginary colours.

The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color. — John Locke

Can we achieve some kind of harmonious unification of contradictions, assuming they are contradictions in the first place? — TheMadFool

Probably. Because the main achievement here is harmonious something to understand it better, thus unification it. Despite they could be so contradictory.

It's never to late but they will appreciate the ones who did it early than you.

we are confused

I had never heard of 'unselfings' before this but have read Iris Murdoch.
I found this article by Jules Evans:
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/iris-murdoch-on-techniques-of-unselfing — Amity

I never heard about this word neither. In this forum I learn something new everyday! It is amazing. I will check out your link. Appreciated:100:

But do you think the proof works with or without the composition argument? — spirit-salamander

I think we need composition argument. This is due to of how our knowledge needs to be proven with solid arguments that will end up convincing others. I guess this is why syllogisms was so important back in the day, despite positive logistics critise them. We need always to compose a good structure because we tend to value theories that are built with reasoning.
Aristotle developed a lot of tools that later on worked in important issues as physic or biology.
I guess DARII syllogism could work here as: some proofs are proven because of a composition argument.

The point of my criticism is that you will always end up with mundane primary movers, never with a God — spirit-salamander

Agreed. Very good quote.

First of all, if you let me give you a wisdom. Do not make OP so long please. Try to make it more concise because sometimes you just copy citations from others that often get out form the nature of what are you proposing. Nevertheless, it is interesting this OP.

no potential can make itself actual" — spirit-salamander

This was just a comment where Aquinas tried to explained the omnipresence of God through Aristotle logic.

The basic principle of Aristotle’s argument is that everything that is in motion is moved by something else. — spirit-salamander

This is probably one of the most important theories ever made by thinkers and also is a fundamental one in West civilisation. Keep in mind that Aristotle made a lot of logic theories as syllogism or the whole is bigger than the sum of all parts or one thing cannot be a different thing at the same time
It was important because somehow religious thinkers as Aquinas copied this principles to develop the belief on God. They literally talked about the same but reinforce it in the idea of God instead of one (Epicuro) or demiurge (Plato), or the atoms (Empedokles).
But the main fact here is that Aristotle ideas were always developed by their originality in terms of physics or reality not by God or religion.

Nongenuine potentials

"are nonreal things." (Zev Bechler)

Genuine potentials, on the other hand,

"can be movers[.]" (Bechler) — spirit-salamander

Parmenides said that the change is impossible because it implies a step from not be to be. But we only can pass to be.
Aristotle replied: Only be can transform to be. But “be” can be explained with different forms, but the change which occurs is the one who passes from potency to act. P is potency and then transform to act. A change means in an upgrade of a potency.

We cannot call this as fallacies. I guess this is what literally happens in physics.

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’. — Wayfarer

I found it in internet and you are right! I never thought ecstasy meant this. The Greek word which appears is έκ-στασις and then means "to be or stand outside oneself, a removal to elsewhere"
Everyday we can learn something new and thanks to you I now know what is the meaning of a drug :sweat:

we haven't made as much progress as we'd have liked in other areas, especially in morality and allied domains — TheMadFool

Good one :up: :100:



As you even said in the OP, we are completely screwed. Probably since the WWII ended back in 1945. We are a civilization (supposedly modern) where the most of the individuals do not care about the principles of the Ancient Greece: ethics, morality, virtues, happiness, democracy, etc...
Now, we live like in a jungle where money is the main goal. Doesn't matter the way you should or have to earn it. You depend a lot of this abstract invention since when we created the Gold Pattern.
The problem is not only the money but who are the ones that looks like to win it so easy. You can see it in their Instagram account or wherever. Somehow many young people think about these "influencers" they have success and this is a big failure.

We are developing a society where a huge number of people want just "quick" things not considering their value or even worse the quality.

So, no... The "famous" ones are not developing ethics or morality because it is not profitable to them. This also happens with books, culture, philosophy, going to university, etc...

That makes more sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, and please clarify. — James Riley

I was referring to your life (singular) because you previously said:

his life means more to me than my own — James Riley

I was not referring to the fat man but you as the example. I guessed you don't care at all about your own life but others do in their own so they steal the weapon and kill you instead.
Also, I even think they would kill the fat man because they were ready to blow him up anyways.

The survival was the main goal, yes. But only for those who were just natural and human: born, reproduce and die. They did not improve their knowledge at all so when you are "ignorant" of circumstances you tend to be happier because it does not affect you as much as it should be.

only to resume our never-ending search for yet another wall in which to bang our heads. — synthesis

I think this happens because humans tend to be so stubborn in all painful things or issues. It is quite a paradox right? Repeating aspects that hurt us.

I'm a bad ass with a gun and his life means more to me than my own or anyone else in the cave. We all die — James Riley

:rofl: you are a wacky head with a gun that doesn’t care about the life but probably the others do and then steal your gun, kill you and the fat man, then they run away. How the tables have turned!

Mecachis is the word I use today (well I use it a lot during my life). It doesn’t have English translation. Don’t try to find it because it leads you to weird synonyms. It is a mean word. I can explain it through examples:

1. Imagine you are in a restaurant and you forgot your wallet. You immediately shout: mecachis I forgot my damn wallet at my home!

2. (This is more usual). Imagine you are running fast because the train/bus is already in the station but you don’t approach at time. You would say: mecachis the bus/train leave me in the station like a dumb head.

Yes I know I going to check Wikipedia too but somehow I guess Stanford is a good university and I suppose all the content is so good in terms of quality.

Exactly! This is what I was wanting when I posted this dilemma and I guess I reached what I was looking for. There were a lot of different arguments and opinion regarding the moralism inside this dilemma. I think sometimes it is interesting debate about this issues.

Two useful references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/ — baker

I just checked the Stanford one. It was so helpful to develop a better criteria in social dilemma. Now, I have the principles to build a better one.

Is that a hot political football ? — Amity

It is an African country: Equatorial Guinea. It was a colony of Spain back in the day. The bottom bubble says so because sadly this is a country completely forgotten despite the fact they speak Spanish. But they are not famous as Latin ones or Philippines. It is a criticism about how Spanish politicians completely lost and didn’t know administrate to.

Agreed but I guess typing my comment as simply mediocre is not input at all. It is just mocking or underrating my opinion without argument.
I can be disagree with you but I don’t underrate your opinion/comment.

What an interesting thread! I want to share this one:



It says: looks like the word GOOOOL is the only one we shout together. This cartoon reflects how the society of Spain is divided by political issues... far from football we cannot be united.

Good OP and interesting question. I guess the answer is not about where to begin but where to go back. Since the Italian renaissance, with Spinoza as thinker, we have separated the development of human knowledge. They decided would be more effective if we divide the topics in two paths: science and humanity. Since then, we do only practical issues but not philosophical. We reached the ability of creating computers and complexity but not asking questions about how is the behaviour or the nature. Most of the people do not want go further. They are full-filled with money.
Galileo did a good step because he changed the way of thinking thanks to his ability to questioning everything and going deeply where the humans used to be. So, he wasn't only a scientist but a good original philosopher.
When some says "what the hell is wrong with you?" Is due to you want to break the rules. Probably this was been told to Stephen Hawkins when he said: There is no god.

So I guess we have to develop a better educational criteria

Perfect! Now, I understand your point. Very good argument :100: :up:

I have bought recently has cost 15-30% more than a year or so ago. Could be it's just me. What has been your experience? — jgill

Exactly the same feeling. Even in terms of prices in shipping or transporting is clearly how increased since the last year. I would say like a 15-30 % as you said.

To all the persons who are/were interested in this thread, PhD David Edmons (senior research associate at Oxford) answered to this dilemma in the following way: Would you kill the fat man?

"The Fat Man quandry highlights the stark clash between deontological and utilitarian ethics" [p.182]. The "Fat Man" in this case is not the fat man of the fat man and the impending doom, but the fat man of the trolley problem, where in one variant we are tempted to push a fat man off a bridge in order to stop a trolley and save people tied to the tracks. As it happens, we learn that both dilemmas go back to the same philosopher, Philippa Foot, who introduces the first fat man before we are given the Trolley Problem.

I guess you could be interested.

So your point here is that those fields are dynamic because it could change and not change at the same time?

Consciousness is thus precisely an absolute change, in which there is nothing that does not change, and in which panta rhei.

What has been said for consciousness must then also apply to physical fields. — spirit-salamander

I think is quite contradictory, at least in physical fields, say that there is change and no change. I say this because physics (general aspect/study) wants to develop the changes in our environment or reality. Probably consciousness can peak this criteria because their complexity. Nevertheless physics could sound empty if we say is a fiel with absolute change but at the end doesn’t change. Keep in mind that this science wants study the practical world, so there will be always change.

There is a website in England, "Forgotten Books": Forgotten Books is a London-based book publisher specializing in the restoration of old books, both fiction and non-fiction — Bitter Crank

Thanks for sharing it Bitter! I going to check it out. It looks like so interesting and the list is huge :100:

That everyone should have the means in addition to the right? — fishfry

Want I meant is that in my ideal world we should have basic salaries to at least buying a house because most of the times this is the average investment all the people do. Having a car is accessory. I know that everyone has the right but not the money to do so. This is what I want to propose. At least have a basic earning where the people (most important the youngest) can a afford a normal house not living with their parents until they are 30 or even older.

In the US doesn't everyone have the right to own a house? Can you give an example of anyone who lacks the right to own a house? — fishfry

I am not American. I am from Spain... we don’t have the same rules and the same economical opportunities

is not necessarily an ethical one. It is one of practicality -- "either you or me". Like I said, consent or the will is important. — Caldwell

I guess it is somehow ethical because of the characteristics and the context. There are a group of unknown hikers and then a fat man. We can say blow him up is pure practical just to survive but I guess in a psychological point of view could be ethical because we are debating about the life of a fat man stuck in a doom, thus, a weaker person than the group. It is not a random person, is fat, meaning that he has more or less a characteristic which is taboo in society (for example, clothes tend to be recently for people with big sizes, etc...)
You see it as pure practical and is very understandable but others could see it as a group killing the weaker human just to survive, so they could think this is not "ethical at all despite the practical aspect"

Note: the original book talked about a pregnant woman. Imagine...

Try asking this question on one on one: what if there's only one person stuck in the cave besides the fat man. It's either the fat man or the other. — Caldwell

Interesting point! I put an example of a group because the original author pretended to defend that mostly the masses would act against to the individual just to survive.
If is only one man agains the fat man, this one would die anyways but I guess in this example is quite worse for awareness because the responsibility cannot distributed

But our time is short. We need answers now, and what we have instead is confusion. — counterpunch

Probably this happens because humans tend to think and use a ideas or knowledge to improve our reality. It is true that praxis and action take advantage of the important issues. Nevertheless, one of the unique aspects inside us is the ability of questioning everything. Like we both are doing here about dilemmas. I guess this was the important step when we evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens.