• Are we ready for extraterrestrial life ?
    We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to faceNils Loc
    The odds are categorized as "impossible" due to the infinitesimally small chance.
  • Philosophy vs Science
    Ontology - the science of being - is definitely part of philosophy. But other sciences traditionally fit under philosophy as well, such as Ethics - the science of (truly) right conduct.A Christian Philosophy
    This is what I'm trying to say. When philosophy asks "What exists" or "What's real", that encompasses all that could be asked of philosophy. In Ethics, the examination is whether morality is objective or subjective (we have morality as a matter of convenience or cooperation, for example). If objective, it exists independent of how we view it, we just need to discover it.

    Folks, the ontology is the same for all inquiries of philosophy -- matter, objective reality, morality, space and time.
  • Philosophy vs Science
    I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves.Philosophim
    It's really simple. The archaic mantra "love of wisdom", when defining philosophy, should receive a more rigorous scrutiny.

    Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    I was joking, actually. Of course metaphysicians can discuss what they want. Just as long as they don't get too carried away. Pesky metaphysicians...Changeling
    :up: I always like it when metaphysicians put things in the perspective of science because they could get outside of it and critique. Scientists must think within the context of scientific situation, otherwise, they lose their credibility. I only started appreciating science when I got into philosophy.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    I might be the only one, but I don't think a mere metaphysician should be getting involved in matters of scienceChangeling
    What are you saying here? We shouldn't have any opinions about anything scientific?
  • Bannings
    "Well it's simple gay people are nasty plane and simple, sure a few of the woman might not be but I'm talking like 1% of the gay community
    And so naturally a bunch of guys that like to get phucked in the azz by other guys and seek this kind of thing out via the night club party seen are going to be the scum that infects the nation
    Jamal
    This does not sound like MAYAEL. I've interacted with him a few times. So, I'm not sure why he would write something like this. Maybe he was drunk when he wrote it. Or he was just stressed out over the news of diseases over and over again that he's taking it out on certain segment of the population.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    Coincidentally, I had planned today on visiting the grave of someone who bailed out too soon. But, I had to do something else, so next week maybe.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it.Hanover
    There's always a way out. And I'm sure we don't mean death, which defeats the point.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    You’ve already defeated your own argument that we are “at home” like other animals and extolled the existential /absurdist dilemma (of the specifically human condition) in one sentence.schopenhauer1
    I don't see how what you just said rejects what I said. Care to explain?

    Living does not require courage, that's just rationalization to avoid having to reckon with death, same with calling death boring.Darkneos
    Well, you're helping my argument, not hurting it. We are humans after all. So, yes, we use rationalization like animals use instinct. Courage consists of going against our tendency towards hopelessness. We use rationalization, of course. But there are enzymes and chemicals in our body at our disposal.

    That's sort of ignorance about what nature is like. Animals survive because they know nothing else. They aren't brave and I wouldn't call that living.Darkneos
    Pardon me. I went back to my post and see if I called the wild animals brave. I said, humans need that. The animals live the way they are designed to live. Because they know nothing else, they use their energy to fuel life.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    Death is boring!

    I have no suggestions if one finds life undesirable. Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so. You've seen a lot of them in vlogs. Cottage fairies is one example. Another, is living a life in the 18th century, complete with costume and oil lamps and lack of modern technology. There's also the shopping addiction. Acquiring things to fill a void. Or just simply using drugs and alcohol to enter the state of stupor and mindlessness.

    I don't know what to think of those people. I try to avoid them.

    But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived.

    What am I saying?

    There's enough chemicals and enzymes in our body potent enough to fight hopelessness and boredom. We just need to know how to use them. When you use them, your mind is focused and even minutes of your life count. Of course, moments like that don't last 24 hours, 7 days a week. Eventually, the highs subside. That's when you sleep, or just do some physical activities. Or eat.
  • To smokers: What request would make you refrain from smoking in a part. situation?
    The person making the request could say they suffer from asthma or some sort of respiratory illness and couldn't be around smoking.

    I'm not sure why the question, though. Smoking is prohibited indoors in all establishments. So, there's no need to reformulate a request, just say smoking is not allowed here, please.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    I apologize in advance to the families of polar bears. They will adapt, I'm sure.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    At current melt rate the northern hemisphere won't have any permanent ice by 2040, 2050 at the latest.Olivier5
    I'm not gonna ask for source on this. I'm not concerned about sources. I'm more concerned about the logic of what you're saying. If icebergs are breaking away from the ice sheet, then they are mobile. If they're mobile, they're drifting to the other oceans. And if they're going to those oceans, then they are cooling those oceans, like the Atlantic. Which is what we need to happen so the oceans can absorb CO2. The ice need to migrate to faraway oceans, and not just stay in the antarctic. The arctic apparently is enclosed, trapping its ice.

    So then, the absorption of excess CO2 will allow the natural processes of insolation changes, which would trigger the start of glacial event or the ice age.
  • Is a hotdog a sandwich?
    wraps and burritos aren't bread.Benkei
    :up:
  • Is a hotdog a sandwich?
    No. It has nothing to do with the use of bread. You wouldn't order "I'd like two salamis, please" and get two sandwiches. But you could order two hotdogs and get two hotdogs in a bun each.

    Another hint is that a sandwich is two slices of bread with things in-between. Buns aren't used for sandwiches (no one is going to arrest you for calling it a sandwich), but for holding the thing which you ordered.
  • Is a hotdog a sandwich?
    With this definition in hand, you can soundly conclude that hotdogs, contrary to popular opinion, are in fact sandwiches.hypericin
    They're not sandwiches. In fact, a hotdog inside a bun is similar to falafel inside a pita bread. They're called by their names in isolation of the bread that accompanies them. So, if you order two hotdogs, you're gonna get two buns with a hotdog inside each. The same with falafel.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    I don't see why not.Olivier5
    Icebergs. That's why. Icebergs breaking away and migrating farther to other oceans and melting, causing changes in oceanic patterns which then causes the oceans to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. The resulting cooling effect triggers the ice age.

    Take away: when oceans temperature lowers, more CO2 are absorbed into the oceans.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    but my argument is that this is very very bad news, not good news.unenlightened
    Ya think?
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    The point I get is that natural insolation will not be cancelling the impacts of man-made global warming. Another point is in the tittle: ice age, interrupted. Compare with:

    Tate's "ice age" (defined by the presence of ice caps) is ending. Because of us. -- Olivier5

    So your article agrees with me, or rather, my take on CC is far closer to current science than Tate's crypto-denialism.
    Olivier5
    No one says the insolation will cancel the man-made global warming. But neither does the man-made global warming stop everything and prevent the earth from entering the ice age period.

    And no, the article does not agree with your assessment that the man-made CO2 will end the ice age. "Interruption" means there is the change in downward trajectory of the climate temperature because the CO2 produced by industrialization is increasing the temperature. But it cannot go on indefinitely so as to stop the glacial cycle.

    As for metronomes... sometimes they break. Gime a sledgehammer and a metronome, and I'll show you how it might happen. The metronome is our climate, the sledgehammer is greenhouse gases.Olivier5
    It's good to insert what-if scenarios, but let's deal with what's real right now. It's not broken yet, let's deal with that.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    @Olivier5
    In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet. — L'éléphant


    That is not happening: the ice caps are fast melting. The Artic one will be history soon, by 2040 or so. Then, in the absence of the moderating factor that the artic ice cap represents, summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere will most certainly shoot up.

    Antarctica is a bigger piece but all models predict that summer ice there will be gone in a few centuries.

    Tate's "ice age" (defined by the presence of ice caps) is ending. Because of us. -- Olivier5

    I took the liberty of copying your comment here because the other thread is closed.

    My response is this:

    In terms of the ebb and flow of the Earth’s climate over the course of its history, the next Ice Age is starting to look overdue. Periods between recent Ice Ages, or ‘interglacials’, average out to be around 11 thousand years, and it’s currently been 11, 600 since the last multi-millennial winter. Although it is almost impossible to predict exactly when the next Ice Age will occur (if it will at all), it is clear that a global freeze is not on the horizon; the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity and the enhanced greenhouse effect that results all but preclude it. But what if we weren’t around and CO2 was lower?

    In a paper published in Nature Geoscience this week, new research proposes that the next Ice Age would have been kick-started sometime in the next thousand years, just round the corner in the context of the Earth’s lifespan, if CO2 was sufficiently low.

    By looking at the onset of abrupt flip-flops in the temperature contrast between Greenland and Antarctica (extreme climate behaviour that would have only been possible if vast and expanding ice sheets were disrupting ocean circulation), the researchers believe they have been able to identify the fingerprint of an Ice Age activation, or the ‘glacial inception’.

    By applying this fingerprinting method to an interglacial period with nearly identical solar radiation, or ‘insolation’, to our own - some 780 thousand years ago - the researchers have been able to determine that glacial inception would indeed be expected to occur sometime soon.

    “The mystery of the Ice Ages, which represent the dominant mode of climate change over the past few million years, is that while we can identify the various ingredients that have contributed to them, it’s the arrangement of these ingredients, and how they march to the beat of subtle changes in seasonality, that we lack an understanding of,” says Dr Luke Skinner from the Department of Earth Sciences, who helped to conduct the research with Professor David Hodell and their colleague Professor Chronis Tzedakis from University College London.

    Insolation, the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation energy, changes over tens of thousands of years due to the variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. It has long been apparent that insolation changes have acted as a pace-maker for the Ice Ages. But, like a metronome paces music, it sets the beat of climate change but not its every movement. The changing concentrations of greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, are evidently what determine when a shift in insolation will trigger climate change.

    “From 8,000 years ago, as human civilization flourished, CO2 reversed its initial downward trend and drifted upwards, accelerating sharply with the industrial revolution,” says Skinner. “Although the contribution of human activities to the pre-industrial drift in CO2 remains debated, our work suggests that natural insolation will not be cancelling the impacts of man-made global warming.”
    From Ice Age, Interrupted article link

    Note that while the man-made CO2 certainly has interrupted the trajectory of the climate change, it did not, and could not destroy the insolation changes that are responsible for the ice ages. Also note that this article uses the words "metronome" and "pace maker" as an analogy to the functioning of isolation changes. I'm sure you get the point.
  • Climate Change and the Next Glacial Period
    This thread should not be confused with global warming created by humans!

    Fair warning.
  • Xtrix is interfering with a discussion
    The topic is a scientific one (albeit the philosophical implications). We ought to expect citation. It's standard practice. We're not interested in what you 'reckon' is the case with regards to climatology.Isaac
    No offense, but this is bullshit. Citation is only accepted here if what you're saying is relevant and/or accepted by thread participants -- sadly. Anyone could give a citation.

    But I'll give my opinion to the conflict happening in this thread and the climate change thread. Tate went it and blew some crap out of the water by stating "We are in an ice age, guys." He is wrong and makes a good point all at the same time. In fact, we're in interglacial period. Which means, sooner or later, we're going to enter the ice age. But not yet.

    The climate change thread in question is only talking about the man-made increase in CO2 for a very brief period in the natural history of the Earth, not the whole epoch of climate change to warrant bringing in the glacial/ice age period. Context is important here. If we're talking about the period between 1800 to 2021, this hardly warrants talking about the ice age. (You don't want the thread to turn into a comical exchange between "like-minded" people, do you?) Hence, even mentioning "are we turning the Earth into Venus" is laughable.

    Over indulgence in a pet thread is a vice.
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?
    Some people could get carried away with overthinking about which is heavier -- a kilo of cotton balls or a kilo of rocks!
  • Order and chaos in the human body
    I do think a positive attitude, if not forced, can help make cancer easier to deal with emotionally and it can make it easier for friends and relatives to cope. Whatever that's worth.Tom Storm
    Amazingly, humans are equipped with an emotion monitor so that at the stage when the end is there already, the body sort of calms down.

    As an interesting fact, doctors themselves are not immune to have this survival distress and equally would ask their doctor to do "whatever it takes" to save them, when they know what a "terminal" illness means and they believe it but would act opposite this fact nonetheless.

    :up:
  • Should Philosophy Seek Help from Mathematics?

    To ask this question for this topic is misplaced. Antinatalism is an ethics argument. As such, argumentation in the form of statements and reasoning will suffice. I think you mean to say that we need to provide mathematical proof to win this argument. No. If anything, that's a charlatan's way of weasling itself into making a point, but really it's just hiding behind numbers because they couldn't articulate their argument properly.

    Why not point out the idea that this issue could not be won?
  • Order and chaos in the human body
    I am surprised about what her doctor said on the absence of correlation between mental attitude and cancer survival. I have heard the opposite said many times by doctors.Olivier5
    I'm not surprised. When the sickness is in the cellular level, no amount of positivity or fight would change that.

    However, those who are physically fit have a better chance of surviving a heart attack. So, while heart condition could strike anyone, some people are better equipped with surviving an attack than others. I read this somewhere.
  • If you were the only person left ....
    The crux of this question is how much value do you place on existing amongst others - of not being entirely alone?Benj96
    I wouldn't dwell on it. I wouldn't have a choice. But I would prefer not to be alone. That said, I would be the representative of humanity. I'd try to exist for as long as possible for winning this impossibility.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    I know dead people do not think. So, the mind is gone.Jackson
    Sure.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    Where is the human mind located? I do not know.Jackson
    Exactly.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    What is the difference?Jackson
    Computers (including AI) have designated locations of each and every part. Humans can have experiential events, for example, dreams, where the storage is not found anywhere. Tell me, where is the mind located?
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    It is just another kind of 'consciousness,' or thinking.Jackson
    Computing, not thinking. Let's be clear on this.
  • Welcome Robot Overlords
    This made me laugh. Thanks for posting it. Baden nailed it! Andrew was clever during the conversation!
  • What is essential to being a human being?
    This is an amusing thread. Credits to Athena. In my opinion, someone here already identified the ultimate test of what it is to be human. It's a very clever answer, but one that truly narrows all other traits/characteristics to this one -- because it covers also the moral agency of a person.

    But in the spirit of sportsmanship, I won't identify who that is. For personal purposes, I'm scoring the answers. :cool:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    All judicial systems fail sometimes. This is a case study in a UK failure:Tate
    Terrible. More power to Amber Heard.
  • Free Will
    Time for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword aka Alder's razor!Agent Smith
    Very well applied! To be honest, I've never heard of Alder's razor until now.
    So, in essence, we do not dispute what can only be surmised.

    We should really discuss how to handle questions like the will or freewill that isn't on par with empirical evidence. Often, I think, the dispute stems from incorrect application of method of examination: one person would challenge the existence of free will by literally asking for scientific evidence. Of course the other could not provide it because there's no scientific evidence of free will.

    But, the lack of scientific evidence doesn't prove its lack of efficacy. And here is where philosophy could gain traction and win over the charge of falsity.
  • Free Will
    Is free will (existence/nonexistence) an empirical claim?Agent Smith
    No. Metaphysical/psychological claim. What does it mean? It means we can't measure it, nor conduct a scientific experiment to show proof of it. It could only be surmised.
  • Postmodern Philosophy and Morality
    The problems some people have with postmodernism are due to their plebeian mentality.baker
    Hahahaha! I've never laughed harder while on this forum. :lol:
  • The Metaphysics of Materialism
    Because proposition no. 8 and its implications don't seem to be in line with a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view.baker
    It's not my problem. I wasn't answering that issue. I was naming no. 8 for easy reference as to its relevance to the OP -- also given that the period is before 1905.
  • Is there an external material world ?
    René Descartes’ famous quote: “ I think therefore I am”, expresses an idea that is often used to support the idealists’ position: we cannot doubt our existence.Hello Human
    If some are using the cogito for their idealist view, we should let them be. But the cogito is NOT a view of idealism. Descartes is a dualist.
  • What Was Deconstruction?
    You're an idiot. And I'm done talking to you.