The odds are categorized as "impossible" due to the infinitesimally small chance.We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face — Nils Loc
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.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
It's really simple. The archaic mantra "love of wisdom", when defining philosophy, should receive a more rigorous scrutiny.I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves. — Philosophim
: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.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
What are you saying here? We shouldn't have any opinions about anything scientific?I might be the only one, but I don't think a mere metaphysician should be getting involved in matters of science — Changeling
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."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
There's always a way out. And I'm sure we don't mean death, which defeats the point.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
I don't see how what you just said rejects what I said. Care to explain?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
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.Living does not require courage, that's just rationalization to avoid having to reckon with death, same with calling death boring. — 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.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
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.At current melt rate the northern hemisphere won't have any permanent ice by 2040, 2050 at the latest. — Olivier5
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.With this definition in hand, you can soundly conclude that hotdogs, contrary to popular opinion, are in fact sandwiches. — hypericin
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.I don't see why not. — Olivier5
Ya think?but my argument is that this is very very bad news, not good news. — unenlightened
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.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
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.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
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
From Ice Age, Interrupted article linkIn 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.”
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.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
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.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
I'm not surprised. When the sickness is in the cellular level, no amount of positivity or fight would change that.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 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.The crux of this question is how much value do you place on existing amongst others - of not being entirely alone? — Benj96
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?What is the difference? — Jackson
Computing, not thinking. Let's be clear on this.It is just another kind of 'consciousness,' or thinking. — Jackson
Terrible. More power to Amber Heard.All judicial systems fail sometimes. This is a case study in a UK failure: — Tate
Very well applied! To be honest, I've never heard of Alder's razor until now.Time for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword aka Alder's razor! — 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.Is free will (existence/nonexistence) an empirical claim? — Agent Smith
Hahahaha! I've never laughed harder while on this forum. :lol:The problems some people have with postmodernism are due to their plebeian mentality. — 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.Because proposition no. 8 and its implications don't seem to be in line with a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view. — baker
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.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