Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster. — Benj96
That's what you think. Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. When you take antibiotics, you're not letting the natural processes of your body to do its job. Have some faith in the process -- let your body do its thing.Bacteria are stressed by the presence antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics. — Benj96
Define this word please.apkky — Benj96
Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out.If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion. — Benj96
I was expecting you would say this. In that case, we're not talking about the same stress as human stress. It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point.According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth potential. — Benj96
Metaphorically, yes. Not the way you think it works. All life has a cycle. A wild tree with fruits has no stress or disorder or mind to direct it. But its fruits, too, will rot at the completion of the cycle.This is how the mind protects DNA. And how DNA protects the order that confers a healthy mind. — Benj96
True, there are mitigating factors that can increase the average life expectancy. There was another thread in the forum that talked about lifespan. Advances in medicine and human conditions contributed to an increase in life expectancy. I mentioned that improving the quality of drinking water alone had contributed a lot to the well being of people.The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA." — T Clark
Because it's only in his mind that the curse is working. You said it in the OP that the curse isn't real. But if he believes that curses are real, then, yes he's bound to that curse.And how might he go about stopping her reign of influence over his bad days? — Benj96
This is the best option -- he needs to confess to his criminal act and ask for forgiveness (he needs to serve time for the crime, of course).By making amends for his originals wrongdoing. An apology is not enough; she also demanded that he confess. If he's done that, he's already in prison, unless the authorities either didn't take him seriously or decided to let him off. Which might be sufficient for the 'witch', but not for his conscience. He doesn't just need to be be freed; he needs to feel free. He needs to do something positive to restore karmic balance. — Vera Mont
If he took option 1, then he needs to "release" her from the responsibility so that when bad days come to him, he doesn't attribute it to the curse and takes it as just life that happens to everyone. So the only way he is freed is for him to stop making her the responsible party for his bad days.Bad things will still happen to Jeremiah since she was bluffing.
And then Jeremiah will hold her responsible. — TheMadMan
She can't. The instruction reads that she has no memory of prior awakening or what day it is. She doesn't even know that the experimenter tosses the coin, because they do it when she's put back to sleep. The question to her is "what are the odds that a coin will land heads (or tails)". Since she must know what a coin is, and what heads and tails is, she must answer "1/2".To answer correctly, sleeping beauty must evaluate the probability she is experiencing each of these events. — hypericin
I said the average -- which means it is the largest stats. If you look at the diagram, in 2017 (The Past Year), the numbers of those involved are fairly small. The average person in a given population are not involved.I was surprised by how high the percentages are. — T Clark
What I said prior was the average person has no interest in governance or politics. How did you come up with the opposite given the stats?Do you see that as evidence that people aren't interested in political issues. It seems just the opposite to me. — T Clark
Without memory of prior awakening or knowledge of what day it is, she would have to answer 1/2. What SB remembers is she was put to sleep and she awakens. The coin is tossed once in her memory.They ask her one question after each time she awakens, however: What is the probability that the coin shows heads?
The scholarly political theories we learned from higher education are only good inside the lecture halls. What we see in actuality is quite a different matter.I agree, and I think this situation has emerged due to the continuous disappointments on politics and all what is related to governance, political theory, etc... I mean: it is not a generational issue but a dysfunctional praxis. — javi2541997
I'm not saying you are wrong, but how do you know this is true? Does this hinge upon what 'have an interest' means? — Tom Storm
That means a superior nation would not emerge. The average person does not have an interest in governance, politics, and nationwide ideals.So yeah, if the youth are into self governance, self discipline and not following some fanatics or fanatic ideology, a superior nation will emerge. — Beena
:100:Too many people are failing in life and too many are serious nut cases and too many are willing to make money any way they can without concern about the harm done to others. On top of that, we are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing. — Athena
Wow. I had no idea. Thanks.1963. There was turmoil all around, with the Klan playing the crowds. At one point there was an explosion, which someone said was one of the confederate canons at the ROTC building going off. One of the civil rights demonstrators yelled, "I hope they hit the bastard this time!" (meaning Wallace). — jgill
I touched on this issue in another thread. In philosophy, the accepted belief is the causal theory of perception -- which means the CNS, and which means they accept the duality of existence and consciousness: the physical brain and the mind that perceives of time. Without the temporal perception, we would be like the enteric nervous system -- able to perform a function, but without self-awareness, no time perception, no self.I was expecting a philosophical not a biological answer (eg a definition of what memory means to some philosophers). — GrahamJ
No, that's not correct. The ENS could function without the input from the CNS. It doesn't record information, as we know information. It's not through memory. I don't know how to explain it.I knew about the enteric nervous system (though I'd forgotten the name). If it records some information, and later uses that information to make a decision, I would call that memory, or even a 'mental record'. — GrahamJ
It means retrieving the information from memory. Mind you, bodily functions such as hunger is not memory based, nor the bowel movement ( I will explain it for those uninitiated, upon request). — L'éléphant
Yes please. — GrahamJ
I agree. Nonetheless, those narrow-minded people, like you said, would make it like he was advancing an argument.He's not advancing a wild argument that is indefensible but more like he grew up knowing one thing and seeing another needs to adjust. Spending 70 years of your life knowing one thing and then having to change course is hard but he's not making any wild claims. — Darkneos
Two women replied, calling me misogynistic and demeaning, and referring to me as "puffing on a corncob pipe through withered lips" and avoiding the civil and women's rights movements in the 1960s. To which I replied I was on campus and had demonstrated against George Wallace as he stood in the doorway to the admissions office at the U of Alabama, denying entrance to a black man, and that, actually, I had joined the women's lib movement during that decade. — jgill
Oh, I responded incorrectly, Tom. I meant to say, that foundationalism is itself a theory, a school of thought, if you will, which has a logical system of statements pointing towards their view. But to answer your question, yes, the postmodern tried to do away with the foundationalist notion of grounds. I actually disagree with them since they, too, were trying to ground their assumptions on some structure of society/government.There is no irrefragable piece of knowledge that founds any thought system - not even the cogito. If this approach involves an act of performative self-refutation, or engenders a regress problem, that only seems to further suggest the inability to obtain a foundational justification. Thoughts? — Tom Storm
If you mean if foundationalism as a theory is on the same level of argument as presuppositions (statements expressing premises), no.Is there a difference for you between presuppositions and foundationalism? — Tom Storm
Yes.But to have an organized anti-system is to have a system, right? — Tom Storm
This would be a fair response against foundationalism -- but it also means that it hasn't undermined foundationalism.Which is why I usually say I hold that human thought is paradoxical and that much of what we call reality is human projection based on our limited perspective. From this 'dimly lit' vantage point I generally hold that I (or any of us) don't have enough information or wisdom to make reliable judgements about the nature of reality. — Tom Storm
A rehash of what's already been written about phenomenal experience in philosophy, except with fancy words and invention or creative license, which unfortunately is unwarranted since he was actually talking about biological and physiological activities. We have scientific records, no need to invent things.If you disagree that the article proposes a solution to the hard problem, then what would you say the article is about? — Luke
A mental record, in other words, a temporal perception, which has already been written about a thousand times by the likes of Descartes, Hume, A. Shimony, etc.Let’s imagine, however, that as the animal’s life becomes more complex, it reaches a stage where it would benefit from retaining some kind of ‘mental record’ of what’s affecting it: a representation of the stimulus that can serve as a basis for planning and decision-making.
What are these attractors? He explains it in this passage:I believe the upshot – in the line of animals that led to humans and others that experience things as we do – has been the creation of a very special kind of attractor, which the subject reads as a sensation with the unaccountable feel of phenomenal qualia.
It means retrieving the information from memory. Mind you, bodily functions such as hunger is not memory based, nor the bowel movement ( I will explain it for those uninitiated, upon request).And, I suggest, this development is game-changing. Crucially, it means the activity can be drawn out in time, so as to create the ‘thick moment’ of sensation (see Figure 2c above). But, more than that, the activity can be channelled and stabilised, so as to create a mathematically complex attractor state – a dynamic pattern of activity that recreates itself.
"Nicholas Humphrey's Seeing and Somethingness -- His Personal Account of What Goes On In Our Brain If or When We Have Sensations For Those Who Have Not Studied Or Read Or Understood Neuroscience".What discussion title would you have used instead? — Luke
Foundationalism isn't problematic to me. If it's challenged, then I'd ask, on what grounds is foundationalism in error or false? No matter what their reasoning is against foundationalism, it is bound to be grounded on something else. Then they're left holding the bag.We only back off of it when it gets problematic for us. — frank
I don't care about perfection. I care about optimization -- for example at work, if I'm optimized (and I have benchmarks as a guide), then I'm content. In anything I do, if the requirement is perfection, I'd like to know what would it take. If I have to give my life, then I move on and switch to another activity.If you were told that no matter how hard you tried, you will never ever reach perfection, that flaw is proverbially "a neccesary evil", that perfection and imperfection are a mutually dependent dynamic.
How would it make you feel? — Benj96
Yeah, this notion gets under fire often because it's cloaked in appeal to ad populum. But how else could one talk about a moral view without mentioning that most people also hold the same view? Most people do not want themselves or their families murdered, is this appeal to popularity?But at the same time, morality does seem to revolve around what most people think is appropriate behaviour - community standards, etc. What — Tom Storm
That's a mislabeled response from me. When I said "no", I meant that you are correct in your explanation of the article, but I disagree with the article.? — Luke
Yes, I doubt it, and yes you did.Do you doubt that the article offers a proposed solution to the hard problem? Have I created bias by announcing that that's what the article is about? — Luke
Have they agreed? Sorry if I missed a post here that agreed that the article proposes a solution. I read some who praised the article as a good article or exciting.Furthermore, I doubt that anyone would honestly disagree that the article proposes a solution to the hard problem. — Luke
No.He is talking about the evolution of phenomenal consciousness - when it first appeared on the scene. Upon its inception you'll come to believe in your own singular significance because you are now phenomenally conscious; you now have personhood. This is not born of some fantasy or desire for individuality, or of wanting your individual pains and colours to be unique, but merely finding that you have them for the first time. — Luke
A's statement is more than an appeal to emotion to B. Notice A's shift from a cultural/societal statement to a factual (biology) claim. You can't argue against facts. See below:The second statement of A seems more of a response to the appeal to emotion of B and not necessarily a retreat of any sort. — NOS4A2
In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. — apokrisis
I agree.B is where the fallacy is. — NOS4A2
"The experts", as technocrats were referred to, were seen as the ones that could save the government and society from degradation. But the way they were conceived to govern was not through representation by the general public, instead they themselves would set the agenda, the planning of the government, and make decision for the good of the nation. The student activism exhibited sentiments that repeated around the world -- they were anti-war and anti-exploitation of the people. They were also pro-technocrats.But the puzzling thing is that he saw the chaos of the student activism as contributing to that technocracy. — Jamal
Read John Locke and JS Mill.But i'm premature in my study so what really defines political philosophy?. — LancelotFreeman
The intelligentsia and technocrats butted heads. Adorno, Habermas, Mancuse are part of the intelligentsia. The intellectuals were supposed to be the analysts of what's going on in politics and society. 'The government should be a representation by the common people, not a rule by the elites, etc.'What is particularly fascinating and at first glance puzzling about this is that he identifies the wild, empty, and irrational pseudo-activity of the students with the increasing “technocratization of the university”. What could he have meant? — Jamal
Not to be dismissive of the article myself either. Roughly I agree with you -- the "proposed solution" that the article offers is not the problem (the inquiry) that the ongoing philosophical movement of consciousness is facing.I haven't worked out my approach to the problem. It's on my list of chestnuts that I would like to get my head around one day. But I would start by making sure that the problem isn't in the way it is formulated. My suspicion is that it is not capable of solution — Ludwig V
I find the underlined cringe-worthy as an analysis of a philosopher. We've always had awareness of the plurality of existence and our own existence. In fact, to refer to "us" presupposes already that I am counting "myself", and vice versa. When philosophers say that the "self" came later after the awareness of others like ourselves, it doesn't mean that we were not aware of our private sensations and perceptions apart from others' private sensations and perceptions. It means that philosophically, or metaphysically, we did not first deliberate on what a "self" is. It was Descartes who first formalized (you can correct me on this) the duality of mind and body. But as common observers of our environment, the early humans and modern humans had it. They got it.Whenever it happened, it’s bound to have been a psychological and social watershed. With this marvellous new phenomenon at the core of your being, you’ll start to matter to yourself in a new and deeper way. You’ll come to believe, as never before, in your own singular significance. What’s more, it will not just be you. For you’ll soon realise that other members of your species possess conscious selves like yours. You’ll be led to respect their individual worth as well.
Again, semantic invention. Except that it didn't happen this way.To cap this, you’ll soon discover that when, by a leap of imagination you put yourself in your fellow creature’s place, you can model, in your self, what they are feeling. In short, phenomenal consciousness will become your ticket to living in what I’ve called ‘the society of selves’.
I get it. That was my point. But I was trying to point out to you that human errors are errors peculiar to humans. Which is what makes it interesting to me. Just as a computer could be made perfect, humans organically develop and along the way this development picks up natural selections, mutations, and accidents, which make for an exciting phenomenon.AGI will make errors and correct and learn from them hundred of thousands to millions of times faster than human brains can. — 180 Proof