Compare the following 4 entities

1. Vladimir Putin
2. Santa Claus
3. Sherlock Holmes
4. Arthur Conan Doyle

There are quite a few events antinatalists can choose to celebrate.

Ok. The issue was whether education makes a difference/not. How would you go about answering this question?



You're of course correct, but we were discussing education.

Good questions. As far as I can tell, we can't also do the opposite of what you said we can't do.

Santa Claus, alas, doesn't exist.

Mushrooms can talk :cool:

I never understood Wittgenstein - all I know is he found holes in the up-to-that-point understanding of meaning (has something to do with essence apparently). I'm also not certain about the ramifications/consequences of Wittgenstein's claim. :confused:

I find Mary's room to be quite a cozy spot for nonphysicalists. The ineffable can't be as ineffable as some things that have been effed, now even by kindergarten toddlers albeit clumsily.

Then, as Emperor Palpatine says to the increasingly agitated Anikin Skywalker, soon to become Darth Vader, "there are ways ... "

NDEs tend to be varied - there are accounts of people having seen hell and heaven. An OBE is one category of NDE that I find very interesting. Imagine what it'd be like to see yourself doing stuff, well, actually just lying on an operation table. That would really rearrange one's beliefs in intersting ways.

As for a counterargument - the phenomenon isn't universally reported and hence, to that extent, dubious. The evidence itself is rather suspect - biased research is almost always a feature. Then of course is the issue of bad science - doctors, neuroscientists, quote unquote, aren't really physicists you know - their grasp of what science actually is wanting in many critical respects.

Since information is uploadable and downloadable, does that mean, 180 Proof, information is nonphysical? What follows?

Harry Nyquist (/ˈnaɪkwɪst/, Swedish: [ˈnŷːkvɪst]; February 7, 1889 – April 4, 1976) was a Swedish-American physicist and electronic engineer who made important contributions to communication theory. — Wikipedia

Yer namesake Mark $\uparrow$

Very Dennettian. I like Daniel Dennett. I hope he doesn't take offense but he reminds me of Santa Claus. :grin:

Anyway, it's undeniable that if something happens to the brain, something happens to the mind.

What about your other belief - I haven't searched for it but I recall you saying it - that the mind is downloadable/uploadable? Clearly that's a view that is not entirely physical in re mind.

Sorry, memory issues, you said quite the opposite $\downarrow$

So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading?
— Haglund
It's a non-starter because it assumes 'substance dualism' which is inconsistent with both the 'principle of causal closure' and 'conservation laws'. I think a more plausible conjecture is a brain transplant into a synthetic body or machine-system. — 180 Proof

I wouldn't. I don't believe in them. — Vera Mont

How about if I ask "what would most Americans/Iranians do?" Does that make sense?

Mind affects the physical brain (and vice versa); ergo mind is physical. (Also: classical, not quantum.) — 180 Proof

I'm a physicalist 180 Proof. What do you make of Chalmer's so-called hard problem of consciousness?

:smile:

True, 180 Proof, that Gnomon's idea of Enformationism is speculative - that's part of the territory (metaphysics). Also true that BothAnd is rather uncomfortably close to saying (p & ~p). However, 180 Proof, you seem to give some credence to Taoist thought; Enformationism appears to be a derivative of this ancient Chinese philosophy. If Toaism makes sense at some level, so too should Enformationism, at least the BothAnd part of it in me humble opinion.

That said, 180 Proof may have very specific issues with the Enformationism, homed in on what some call fatal flaws.

An open question, especially with regard to human behavior. — jgill

Yep! We're in back in the neolithic age, in some respects.

Two things about that: NONA and There is no such animals as an average person — Vera Mont

The average person, how would you define him/her?

Thanks. Pretty heady stuff for one unversed in physics . . . :cool:
6hReplyOptions — jgill

:rofl:

I knew what I was supposed to do ( :zip: ) but I didn't, I couldn't. I was compelled to stay write. — :cool:

Pardon me if I've insulted math in anyway.

Oh, now I see what happened there! A crossing of wires, a confusion minds. A regular day for a philosopher.

This was an old post. I've actually forgotten that I ever wrote it. Thanks for the reminder. A long, long time ago in my universe buddy.

I would say that the matter is far from settled, but that's not its unique/special feature; so yeah!

Education is important and by education I mean a wholesome one. Statistics should aid you and @Vera Mont decide who's right even if only partially. Who is a better human being? The average American, the average Chinese, the average Indian, ...? Why? Education!

:coffee:

Possible, very possible.

If aliens ever sent us a message, it would probably be too little too late if you know what I mean, both for them and and for us. :groan:

That doesn't sound like math. Anyway, I'm not that good at stringing 0's. — Vera Mont

Well, that's because some things can't be mathematized ... or can they?

May be we have deadlier stuff to worry abut than cannabis sativa! Om Namoh Shiva! :pray:

This is what my intuitiom tells me to say: You know yourself best!

Apart from that, there's a nuance in the post I can't quite put my finger on at the moment. That's all from me (for now).

Strawson's argument boils down to us having no say, no say at all, in, as hs puts it, the way we are. The rest follows of course.

Metaphysics is too speculative and too vast to navigate, relatively speaking; simplify at your own risk.

:smile:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

We start from [0, 1]
We add 1 to 0 [0. 1. 1]
We add 1 to 1 [0. 1, 1, 2]
We add 2 to 1 [0, 1, 1, 2, 3]
.
.
.

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ...

Notice how it builds up in a way that's nearer to exponentiation [the (golden) ratio between fibonacci numbers gets closer and closer to 1.1816...] than addition.

Bugger them, I'm more concerned about Australopithecus. :yikes: — Tom Storm

Selection pressure got them! :grin:

Sean Connery was the only 007 (1962-71) for me. — 180 Proof

Thatsh right! He wash the besht! :cool: :grin:

A 5 star post!

There's this feeling everybody has: The world is not enough! I love James Bond movies by the way.

Well, what about the source of energy? Something must've got the ball rolling and that's what primum movens is all about, oui mon ami?

Reincarnation

1. Explains
2. There's evidence albeit flimsy

As usually, top notch post!

List of people who need to be put in main bunker in case of nuclear Armageddon

1. 180 Proof
2. Myself :grin: Just kiddin'
.
.
.

Back to topic.

There is reincarnation, Buddhism says so. It's a religion that's 2.5k years old and I can't imagine how something that old could be false. Someone would've seen the butler exit the dining room at 8:30 AM, oui?

No problemo!

An old question pops to mind - Is the apotheosis of Bentham-Mill-ianism Kantianism, ethically that is?

$\frac{m_t}{s_t}$ = d

m_t = moving time
s_t = stationary time
d = time dilation factor (how slowly is time passing for the moving observer).
v == velocity
c = speed of light
T_m/s [relative time, moving observer (m) relative to stationary observer (s)] = m_t $\times\space d$

d $\propto$ $\frac{1}{v}$

As v $\to$ c, d $\to 0$ and T_m/s $\to 0$

I see yer point. I went overboard with the idea of "Americans are becoming more hedonistic". However, America isn't the same as Lesbo and Sodom. America is America! She can perform delicate microsurgery while she has multiple orgasms. :cool: