• Help With A Tricky Logic Problem (multiple choice)
    ↪DavidJohnson

    Some Ayes are Bees — DavidJohnson
    What's "Ayes"? I guess it means simply "anyththing" ...

    Well, I prefer to "translate" your puzzle-problem into something more meaningful:

    Some animals are mammals
    All cats are mammals

    A) Some animals are cats: True, since mammals are animals (based on the first premise) and cats are mammals
    B) Some cats are mammals: False, since we know that "All cats are mammals" (and not only some)
    C) No cats are animals: "No cats" is ambiguous - In case it means "none of the cats", then it is false, based on (A)
    D) No animals that are not mammals are cats: "No animals" is ambiguous - In case it means "none of the animals" then it is true, since cats are mammals
    E) None of the above conclusions can be drawn: False, since there are two true statements, (A) and (D).

    (If we reject (D) as ambiguous, then it remains (A) as the only true statement.)
  • The existence of ethics
    But then, well-being is no more explanatory than good — Astrophel
    Well, they are different things, aren't they? The first one means a state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. The second one is much more general and it can mean that which is right (in general), a benefit or advantage to someone or something, etc. I have clarified the word since a lot of people start asking questions like, "OK, but what is (considered) good?" etc.

    Anyway, there is a book you might find interesting by Oldenquist, called "Non suicidal Society". — Astrophel
    Please, give me something easier to do! :grin: For instance, answer to your own viewpoint(s).
    In in fact, I am more interested in first-hand --people's own-- than second-hand opinions.

    family comes before country, country before world; that kind of thing. — Astrophel
    It would be good to have some examples, because I can't see how such a thing can work ...

    In the first place, according to this scheme, "you" are more important than your "family", since you are the smaller than it, right? Well, this is one of the reasons why marriages fail. And if your marriage fails and you break up, then you get "smaller": you are retreating into your shell.

    Then, how can your family be more important than your country if you need a country to live and work in, in order to sustain it?

    Then, if your country is more important than the world, could you go against the whole word to defend it? If another country attacks yours, who would be there to support your country since it behaves as being more important than every else? Why do you think coalitions are created in wars?
    Your country cannot live isolated except in a jungle!

    No, sorry, this scheme does not make any sense.

    Beware of what authorities (experts), known personalities --philosophers or other-- say. Don't adopt their opinions except if they really make sense to you, "work" for you and apply to your life.

    The problem with utility is that people are not quantifiable entities. — Astrophel
    Certainly not.

    There is a sovereign "right" one has over the public good. — Astrophel
    I'm not sure, but maybe "There is a no sovereign 'right'" ?
    If you meant that, there is such a right. This is where customs, traditions, laws, etc., come in.
    But above these, "public good" is what benefits society. And I think everyone knows what. It's another thing if people chose to ignore it or do the opposite. This has to do with personal ethics. Only insane people usually cannot distinguish right from wrong.
  • The existence of ethics
    it's a good definition of self-sacrificial ethics — god must be atheist
    Why definitely "self-sacrificial"? Although sometimes you may sacrifice things you would like to do or have for yourself for the sake of others, e.g. your family, your company, etc., this is not always the case. But even in these cases, if, for example, you sacrifice your desire to buy a nice car and instead use that money to send your son or daughter to the a College or University, this will increase their survival because they would have a better salary in the near future than if they were just school graduates. And this will also benefit the whole family, wouldn't it? There are a lot of examples of such cases.
    On the other hand, you are not supposed to sacrifice everything for the sake of others. In that case you threaten your own survival and well-being, and you can even die. And that would be not good for anyone. That's why suicide is generally considered an unethical action. It's against survival. That is, against life.

    the ultimate spring and origin of ethics is the survival of the individual and/or the survival of his DNA derivatives. — god must be atheist
    OK, but this is totally physical. Well-being refers to both physical and mental aspects. Happiness, joy, intelligence, feeling free, and so on are all non-physical and attributes of well-being, and thus ethics.

    The circles you mention .. — god must be atheist
    "Spheres!" We live in a 3D world! :smile:

    actual efforts to make survive — god must be atheist
    Please don't stick to the word "survival". A lot of people do. However, I add the word "well-being". But also a lot of people ignore it! I am not sure exactly why. (Although I have some idea why :smile:)
    You may substitute the word "survival" with "life" if you like. In fact, I think I will start using that word instead myself! :smile:

    his personal ethics may be skewed in the sense of what expectations society places on him, because of the discrepancy between his agenda and society's agenda. — god must be atheist
    If there is such a discrepancy, and it is difficult for you to bear that, you might want better go and live in another society. But as long as you stay in it you must respect its rules and expectations. If your company has a certain code of ethics or rules or policies with which you disagree, you have to either live with them (because your salary is more important) or join another company. Isn't that right?
  • The existence of ethics
    ↪Astrophel


    Of course, you can examine ethics from different angles, in different ways, conceptually, practically, religiously, philosophically, as a field of study and so on. However, I think what is most;y needed is to describe the essence of ethics and the usefulness of its application in everyday life, which, I believe, is the following:

    Ethics is the support of survival and well-being. It is also their protection, promotion and enhancement. It is applied on many levels or spheres: individual (person), family, groups and humanity. One is higher and larger that its previous one. These are best represented as concentric spheres. An action is as ethical as it does more good to a larger number of people on these spheres. (By "good" I mean of course "in favor of, supporting well-being".)
  • Examining Wittgenstein's statement, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"
    Wittgenstein wrote in TLP 6.421 "It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental". — RussellA
    Ethics is not at all transcendental --not in a Kantian sense or a supernatural or abstract way or exceeding experience. It is something very practical, real and rational. It has to do with survival and well being.
    So as I see, Wittgenstein had also this wrong ...
  • Examining Wittgenstein's statement, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"
    Without a language we cannot communicate with others — pfirefry
    It's not about communication in general. @ceativesoul mentioned "talk about". (Since words here are the main factor.) Otherwise, we can communicate with others in a lot of different ways ...
  • Examining Wittgenstein's statement, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"
    Witt is wrong. The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul
    :up: At last!
  • You are not your body!
    ↪180 Proof

    Yes, I know about this kind of interpretations. I was once (a very long time ago) involved deeply in Eastern philosophy ...
  • You are not your body!
    (deleted)
  • You are not your body!
    ↪universeness

    I will reply to your last 3 messages in a while, using private messaging ...
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    as they don't seem to have a wink emoticon — universeness
    :wink: (Just add colons to your "wink")
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    ↪universeness

    No problem. I got it, anyway! :smile:
    I don't know if you realized ... We have completely destroyed this topic! :grin:
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    For godssake
    — Alkis Piskas
    Now don't get all 'theist' on me.....ha ha     — universeness
    ... It was with a small "g" ... :smile:

    I don't know the moderator's system of moderation, perhaps it's by sampling or something — universeness
    I don't know either ...

    This website is very pleasant compared to some I have read. — universeness
    I guess so.

    But I support your goal to maintain and encourage people to be polite but we don't want to turn into snowflakes either. — universeness
    Good. Thanks. :smile: Thanks god, I have been justified, at least partly! :smile: (Really, now. I'm not a theist. Note the small "g" again ... :grin:)
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    That "non-physical part" you offer becomes two questions. — universeness
    Don't worry about spoiling Agent Smith's (not Banno's) topic ... It gets more replies => more popular! :smile:
    But we got already far astray. Better check my topic "You are not your body!" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1) You can comment to it, if you like. :smile:
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    an old retired computing teacher! — universeness
    I am a retired programmer too, well among other retirements! :grin:
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    It just means 'No sense' or non sense — universeness
    In my language, saying "This is nonsense" is clearly impolite, if said publicly or between two people who are not familiar with each other. I believe this is true for most countries.
    One can always say "This makes no sense", which is perfectly OK. But if he choses to say "nonsense" instead, he does it on purpose. See? It's the intention that counts.

    []not intended as an insult[]
    Certainly. That's why I said impolite. And we don't need that, do we? It makes this place less pleasant, doesn't it?

    []this site has moderators. Let them arbitrate.[]
    For godssake, it wasn't so serious to report it and call the attention of the moderators ... It was just a remark I made. And it certainly didn't have to take such dimensions!
    Anyway, there's enough rudeness going on in this place already that overshadows this case!

    ***

    OK, let's move to some other topic to talk about something more interesting! :smile:
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    "BTW, as someone who knows about photography"
    - Alkis Piskas
    Not sure if you are referring to me or you.     — universeness
    To you. But it applies to both of us. :smile:

    "Reality defeats though!"
    - Alkis Piskas
    Don't understand your contextual use of the word 'defeats' here.     — universeness
    You are right, sorry. I missed the word "us". (I initially had typed "Reality wins")

    Surely 'thought' is a part of an individual's reality and an objective reality, if we consider the human race as a totality. — universeness
    :up: At least someone who can see what "objective" reality can mean!

    I Disagree with your 'cannot' above and would suggest 'can' instead or at least 'perhaps can.' — universeness
    OK. I can accept this.

    In this sense, we are all made of the same raw materials. We are ALL part of the posit of infinite diversity in infinite combinations. — universeness
    Well, as far our physical part (our body) is concered. But there's also a non-physical part ... (Well, this for some other time, though! :smile:)

    ***
    BTW, why don't you use the "Quote" feature (like I do) that TPF offers for replying? It makes more clear who says what.
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    ↪Raymond

    This exchange was a waste of time. I am out of here.
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    I think this makes no sense, or that it is nonsense. — Raymond
    I can accept "making no sense", althought it is not so appropriate in here. But what I cannot accept is "being noonsense", which is an offence and totally inappropriate in this place, as well as other serious discussions in public. Anyway, I have ignored even this too, to see if and what you really have to say about my reasoning about time and infinity.

    Time could have a starting point that is different from the time that is measured by the clock. Etc. — Raymond
    I have not mentioned anything about "clocks"!

    As I can see, you have just rejected my whole reasoning sequence as a "nonsense" (very bad) and you have not produced any argument on any of my easing steps. Instead you started talking about clocks. This is not how it is done. So,
    1) You must learn to be more polite.
    2) You must learn your basics, esp. about arguments and counter arguments.
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    Each still image is 'recorded' on the physical medium called the 'fabric of space' — universeness
    Yes, I have heard about that expression-term, also a very long time ago. It seems that it has faded away! :grin:

    when you look at a photograph you are actually doing time travel in a very real sense
    As a photographer, I produce evidence every day that time travel into the past is real.     — universeness
    Yes, figuratively. And in your mind. In your mind you can do a lot of things, you know! :smile:

    Your photographer example is quite interesting. But we don't have to refer necessarily to photographs, picture frames or movies as a recording of the past. Our whole life is recorded into our memory in frames, at a much shorter rate, since we are perceiving images with a duration up to about 400 fps. (New video standards support up to about 300 fps.) So, our whole past is there.

    My use of 'I' in the paragraph above is, of course, just my attempt at representing the old photographer. I just find this a very interesting viewpoint. It is scientific evidence of the reality of the concept of 'past', well what do you think? I for one, like it. — universeness
    Yes, I like it. I already mentioned it's quite interesting.

    BTW, as someone who knows about photography, you most probably have heard about people saying "photography is more real than reality". I think this is based on the fact that photography can capture an instant of infinitesimally small duration, something our human perception is unable to. And I always laugh when I see pictures of persons caught "sleeping" while they are talking, eating, etc. :grin: So, we may be tempted to question the above statement, since persons normally never sleep while eating! :grin: But this is only according to what we can observe. The "sleeping" person is real, though. Reality defeats though!

    However, as interesting as all this may be, it doesn't really tell us anything about time. We cannot use a recording of any kind as a proof for the existence of time or even as a result of time. Neither can we attribute to time the decay of matter, e.g. of our bodies, as we grow old. it is the result of aging, a process of life. It is a finite process, with a start (birth) and an end (death), the cycle of life as we call it, wrongly of course, because it's a line and not a circle! :smile:
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    ↪Agent Smith

    I have already responded to your topic (See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/643002)

    I the meantime, always within this thread, I conceived of another interesting proof about the non-existence of time, based on pure and simple logic:

    If time exists (literally, physically), it is infinite, since it has no start and end. That is, it is indefinite and indefinable (it cannot be described exactly). Thus, it does not actually exist, at least for us. So, the statement "Time exists" leads to its negation! :smile:

    Of course, the same reasoning applies to whatever we consider as infinite, e.g. God.
    It also tells us, as a corollary, that if something exists it cannot be infinite. E.g. the observable Universe, the infinity of which is still an open question in cosmology! (I wonder what they need to "close" it and when this would be done ... I think this is long overdue!)
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    ↪Raymond

    OK
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    Time is a material process etc. — Raymond
    I'm bad in Physics but I think I see what you mean. However, time is not a process. Change is. A process is a series of actions, steps, movements, changes, etc., which may or may not have a start and end. Some cycles of actions or events, e.g. the periodic revolution of Earth around the Sun, have no start or end, except if we arbitrarily set them ourselves. Otherwise, they are continious processes. We called such a revolution a "day" and divided it into "hours", "minutes", etc. "Days", "hours", "minutes", etc., which are time representations, do not actually exist: they are names of measurement units created by us.

    The same thing goes with past, present and future. Neither of them exist. They are arbitrary time attributes created by us for description purposes..

    Finally, you can also look at the subject on a purely logical basis:
    If time really existed, it would be infinite. That is, indefinite and undefinable. That is, it can't exist, at least not for us. So, the statement "time exists" leads to its negation! :smile:
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    Still when compared in different frames time is very real. — Raymond
    Right. Time may exist and be real in a lot of different ways. But not as physical.
  • Impossible to Prove Time is Real
    ↪Agent Smith

    Good logical analysis. However, we know already --or can easily find out-- that time is not real. (The word "real", of course, considered as something physically existing or occurring.)

    Everything that physically exists can be observed or sensed or located or identified in any way. Time is not offered for any of these. Because it is not physical. It's a dimension. It is used to measure motion and change.

    This is a simplified approach, of course, and there are other like this. For example, when we talk about time, we also have to talk about past, present and future. Neither of them however actually exists: past has gone; it does not longer exist, present becomes past at the moment we try to identify it and future has not happened yet. The reason why is so, is that time refers to a continuum, which has no start, middle or end points. As the old mate Heraclitus said "Everything flows".
  • Subject and object
    dispensing altogether the idea that beliefs are properties of individuals — sime
    Whose else beliefs are properties of? :smile: Even if you mean society's, doesn't a society consist of individuals? And even if we try to describe what the beliefs of a society are on a certain subject, wouldn't the same thing hold, that is, what a society believes about something, that would be true for that society? We get to the same point. We can expand this to the whole race and the whole planet (all humans). In all cases we get to the logical redunancy (or circular reasoning) that you are mentioning:

    I believe(x) implies x is true, and
    x is true implies I believe(x)     — sime

    And this is exatly what I tried to show @Banno, who in the beginning of his topic maintained that "belief and truth are not the same".

    as for example in machine learning when informally analysing a reinforcement learning algorithm in terms of "goals" and "belief states" — sime
    Nice! :up:
  • Subject and object
    ↪sime

    I think that you are talking about another kind of beliefs, since you involve society.
    I'm talking simply about "belief" as a concept and referring to individuals: "an acceptance that something exists or is true". It is something very very, but very, simple. Too simple, and that's why maybe the discucussion with @Banno turned into a loopwhole. Some minds cannot recognize or handle or stand simplicity. That is, simple logic. Things can never be straight for them. They have to be curves or sigzags.
  • Subject and object
    "Whatever I believe is true, it is true for me."
    — Alkis Piskas
    ...says no more than "what I believe, I believe".     — Banno
    Nothing like that. It says that belief and truth are so closely connected that one implies the other.

    You have maybe forgotten that all this discussion hase resulted from you stressing the point that "belief and truth are not the same" and I answered, yes, but only as concepts, not in essence.

    You have no arguments. You just react.

    Well, all that was a total wast of time. :angry: I'm out of here.
  • Subject and object
    Well, no, as those who do not believe in Covid are discovering en masse — Banno
    I don't know what exactly you mean by discovering en masse, i.e. what are they discovering, but whatever they are discovering doesn't change the fact that as long as they believe that Covid does not exist, it is true for them that Covid does not exist.

    "If there's an objective reality, who is out there to tell?"
    — Alkis Piskas
    We are.     — Banno
    We, who?
    Well, whoever is "we", isn't each of us a "subjective" entity with our own reality? If our realities/views about something coincide, i.e. if we agree on something, we can call this "common reality". Not "objective reality". There's no such a thing.

    Repeating the confusion is not an improvement. — Banno
    Sorry about that. I thought I explained my point clearly ...

    ***

    So, here is the essence of my point --please coinsider it in a new unit of time: "Whatever I believe is true, it is true for me." . Do you agree? (If not, why?)
  • Subject and object
    ↪Banno

    belief and truth are not the same — Banno
    Of course, as concepts! But they are closely connected: Isn't what I believe, true for me?

    One can believe stuff that is not true — Banno
    That is not true for whom? Based on what?

    being true does not imply being believed — Banno
    Again, being true for whom and based on what?

    Certain statements are labeled subjective because they set out an individuals taste or feelings. In contrast, other statements are called objective, as they do not set out an individual's taste, feelings or opinions — Banno
    I agree, but their difference is not exhausted in that. The problem is not with "subjective", which is clear enough. It is rather with "objective". It is used to signify the existence, quality, etc. of something does not depend on what you and I believe is true, but it exists by its own, it has its own truth, etc. It is what we call "actual" or "real". Here is where matters get perplexed. What does "actual" mean? Some dictionaries say "existing in fact, real". Well, we get immediately into a "circuitry", since "actual" and "real" are in a general sense synonymous! I would even call that a "empty" definition, since when we say "it's a fact", we mean "it's actual", "it's real", "it's true"!

    So, inevitably we get into the subject of "reality" and the hot question, "Is there an objective reality?"
    And my equally hot answer to that is (a counter-question): "If there's an objective reality, who is out there to tell?"

    Does this get us to an impasse? Hopefully not. Because we can think of reality as an agreement that something exists (or happens or happened, is what it is, has certain qualities, etc.) It starts with what we ourselves agree about the existence of something and expands to a common reality, i.e. the agreement between two or more persons regarding the existence of something. This common agreement is the closest we can get to "objective" reality! The more people agree on something the more "objective" a reality is.

    So, reality and truth are always subjective! "Subjective" is something absolute. "Objective", on the other hand, is something relative.

    I hope that this clears the difference between "subjective and objective" in the given context and puts them in the right perspective. :smile:
  • Ethical Violence
    ↪john27

    Glad you agree! :smile:
  • Is consciousness, or the mind, merely an ‘illusion’?
    the concept that you need a non-physical entity to think is — Brock Harding
    I didn't get that. Something missing?
  • Ethical Violence
    When it is done to prevent something worse from taking place. — Tom Storm
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/640824
  • Is consciousness, or the mind, merely an ‘illusion’?
    Are you saying that if we were all merely the fabled philosophical zombies, then this discussion would be an illusion? — bongo fury
    No. In such a case this discussion would just have not taken place. Have you ever seen in movies any two zombies discussing? :grin:
  • Ethical Violence
    violence isn't good, but necessary in some cases — john27
    This is true, e.g. hitting someone who is threatening you, i.e. as self-defence. Well, this may be necessary, as you say, and also justified and not considered illegal in a court, but I don't think that it can be called "ethical". Because then you can kill a violent person and consider that you are doing good to the society, towards which he behaves violently. That is, consider that the society is better without him.

    Then there's punishment, which is generally considered violent, even in the form of just restricting someone's freedom. This is often necessary. But can we call it "ethical"?

    Ethics have to do with moral principles. The above examples cannot be included in such principles. So, I believe that in such special cases, ethics should not be involved; they have nohing to do with them. Not doing so, we extend ethics to unexplored territories, making it more difficult to define them than what it already is! :smile:
  • Ethical Violence
    ↪john27

    Violence is a behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How can it be ethical???
  • Is change a property of space, objects, or both?
    ↪Daniel

    Change is not a property. It is a process. Property is an attribute, a quality, a characteristic.
  • Is consciousness, or the mind, merely an ‘illusion’?
    You may have heard of the concept that consciousness, or the mind, is merely an ‘illusion’. — Brock Harding
    Don't pay attention to rumors! :grin:

    Oh, come on, if consciousness, thinking, etc. were an illusion, then this discussion would be also an illusion!
  • If Dualism is true, all science is wrong?
    ↪TiredThinker

    The article subtitle - legend says "Either science is right or there is a spiritual realm. They can't both be true." This is so irrational that I needn't go on (although I had a glimpse).

    Science is science and spirituality world is spirituality. One refers to the material world and the other to the spiritual world. Exploration in other is consequently done basically with difference means, although in spirituality some limited scientific means may be used. Not the other way around though.

    Descartes and his Dualism moved us from the comfortable situation that the world around us can be explained and described in pencil and paper, which is a huge illusion. There are a lot things that science cannot explain, although it tries hard for centuries. And the worst thing is that it can't give up in matters that do not belong to its jurisdiction. For instance, they insist that consciousness is created and located in the brain, although they don't have a real evidence. It ridiculizes itself by claiming that spiritual and mental phenomena --awareness, thought, feelings, etc.,-- are created and processes in neurons! This happens, because they cannot admit that there is any other world that the material one.

    So, I don't see how can dualism make science wrong. Except maybe if the latter tries to enter foreign territories.
  • A Physical Explanation for Consciousness
    The content of the physical can be non-physical? — Raymond
    Empty objects: they contain nothing! OK, this is self-defeating (language deficiency). But what about a "written page containing ideas, information, etc."? OK, this is a figure of speach.
    So, I guess not. :smile:

    That was fun, but I can't see how does this question fit in the discussion ...
Home » Alkis Piskas