Good point. We're all enigmatic at some level I guess.

And I missed the Witt reference, but I do agree with him regarding getting a job. You're not bowing down to corporatism, capitalism, conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Trumpism, GW Bushism, or whatever it is that represents all that is evil by admitting to the value of hard work. I'm pretty sure even Marx envisioned that people would work hard.

And I'd expect you'd even admit to the real benefit of getting out of the rut of dependency and directionlessness when you secured a challenging job.

Porters annoy me, offering to do what I can do myself just for a tip.

This provides a pretty good summary, caricatures to be sure, but it makes both of our points:

https://youtu.be/n9huSs0g67c

Also... You have to be a certain age to remember why they smelled their papers.

"Matters" in the sense that what you say will doubtfully matter in terms of bringing about meaningful change, not that people don't matter. It's possible something we say in this thread will change a person's life course, but such things usually require far more effort. Our influence is limited, and that is probably a good thing.

I was philosophizing, which isn't a pragmatic exercise, but an academic one. Embrace him, reject him, help him, offer criticism, it hardly matters. Do you live under the illusion any of this matters?

Trumpish. Funny insult. Anywho, this has actually become a thread about what constitutes a dick and whether I fulfill those criteria.

Your mother's reliance on you is unfortunate, an outgrowth of the blurring of child and parent roles, necessitated by the absence of your father. Your feeling of dependency is understandable given your situation, but at least understand it stifles your growth. Dispense with calling me a dick or whatever, but do think about where you are and why you're there.

I'm not so obtuse as to not realize my harshness, but I'm also not so unkind as to deny an unparented child very (and I mean very) basic parenting. Where is dad in all this discussion about living with mom? I know, many grow up without dad. Too many.

Oh please. Save the psychoanalysis. I have two well adjusted kids, both succesful. I'm very hands off on the minutia, the opposite of the tiger parent. The path to independence is not paved with constant hand holding. You have no comprehension of the infinite compassion a parent has for their child and the simultaneous suffering that occurs with their every struggle all with the understanding that the baby bird must flap his own wings in order to fly.

All this is to say you may tell me the best way to parent when you have some inkling what it entails. Before that, it's just silly speculation.

Yes, you're right. He should earn minimum wage and let mommy care for him forever.

Here we go again...

Be glad that you have a decent brain between your ears. It's time to put it to more use. You strike me as an intelligent fellow who has not "engaged with life" yet. This is a common enough problem--you are not alone here--but YOU need to "get engaged with life". You need to get your ass on the bicycle and start peddling toward something specific. — Bitter Crank

Amen.

I do care and I do know what I'm talking about. I have kids around you guys ages. Coddling them would be a recipe for disaster. You guys sound like a bunch of kids calling the grown ups assholes.

Thanks for the kind words. Despite all my failings whatever they may be, I take nothing back from what I've said. We live in a world where fatherhood and paternalism are shunned, as in how dare I tell a young man to dust off and get back in there. I've not suggested living with mom isn't a short term solution, but it's not a lifetime plan. It's no plan. It's easy and lazy. Quitting is shameful. Deal with it.

I am not sure what an ontological probability would even mean. — SophistiCat

Note, though, that "ontological probability" is not a term I used. I would refer to ontology as the current state of being, which would describe Schrodinger's cat as both alive and dead at the same time.

That is, if you have a cat in a closed box, and an indeterminate event will determine if cyanide is released inside the box, ontologically the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box.

As Schrödinger says: "The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts."

Wiki: "When opening the box, the observer becomes entangled with the cat, so "observer states" corresponding to the cat's being alive and dead are formed; each observer state is entangled or linked with the cat so that the "observation of the cat's state" and the "cat's state" correspond with each other."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

Actually, its a very rewarding job! And, I don't come home stressed and angry about dealing with assholes and the such. Living with mother isn't bad, I enjoy it. It was hard when I was younger and enamored with doing a whole wide range of things and such as moving to a different country and bla bla bla. — Question

You're not stressed because you have no real responsibility or accountability. Worst you can do is damage a plant.

But, you know, living in a retirement home might be what awaits you given that you're so against being dependent on someone or something.

Sure, lash out when I tell you to get to work.

I think you should get a real job so that you can support yourself and not live with your mother. Where's your father who ought to be telling you this? Working at a nursery for minimum wage while supported by mom isn't ideal. It's pathetic. Let me say that again. It's pathetic. I could be nice and tell you you're super fantastic for finding the path of least resistance, that you're a Buddhist superhero and that you're fighting the good fight against capitalism, but you're not. I'm not aware of any system, capitalistic, communistic, or whatever, that thrives by having people do as much nothing as possible.

I don't know that philosophy is the way to financial self-sufficiency, but, to the extent any college degree will suffice, do that and pave your own path and earn your own keep. If you do try to be a philosopher and you fail, at least you'll have tried, as opposed to potting plants and then coming home to mom's meatloaf.

Now, when you talk about our confidence, we conditionalize on your background knowledge, K: — SophistiCat

Which is to admit this is all an epistemological question and not an ontological one. That is, you're asking how accurate our knowledge is of an event.

However, if you ask the ontological question of whether the coin is heads or tails prior to looking at it, then you have Schrödinger's cat that is both heads and tails (the coin, not the cat; the cat is dead and alive).

According to this, there's a 51% chance of it being whatever was face up when tossed. — Michael

The testing protocol was too controlled. What can be said is that under conditions X (where you use a spring mechanized flipping device that offers consistent forces on the coin), the probability of the coin landing on heads is 51% where the coin started out as heads. My assumption is that if the coin flipper were better designed to yield even more consistent and predictable forces, the predictability of the coin landing a particular way would also be affected.

As to the question of what will happen when I flip a coin will only be answered by me flipping a coin, which will be a far less controlled environment. I'll do that and then do a big write up with all sorts of vectors and shit.

Only in deductive reasoning. Retroductive reasoning is valid when it produces an explanatory hypothesis that is capable of experiential testing. Inductive reasoning is valid when it proceeds in such a way that it will be self-correcting in the long run. — aletheist

With the understanding that retroductive reasoning is a type of inductive reasoning.

If inductive reasoning works, then why don't scientists use it? If you think that scientists use induction, perhaps you could give an example of a theory that was induced, and how it was induced? — tom

The scientific method is inductive in its entirety.

Some legal analysis: As to #1, a contract requires consideration, meaning there must be an exchange of something of value in order for a contract to be valid. Bob received nothing in return for his favor (as in, had Alex paid Bob money to take the points), so his agreement was a gift and unenforceable. However, the law does recognize the doctrine of detrimental reliance as a substitute for consideration. That is, while Bob gifted his acceptance of points to Alex, Alex relied to his detriment on that promise to see it through, and Bob failed to perform, resulting in damages to Alex. So, judgment for Alex for all costs arising from Bob's breach.

The New York Times published some maps this morning showing how the popularity of a bunch of TV programs were very closely correlated with voting patterns in the recent election. — Bitter Crank

So, which shows did the libs like and which did the God fearing like?

I think it's been clarified here that there is a distinction between inductive and deductive logic, with the former allowing for probabilistic conclusions and the latter allowing only for necessary conclusions. It's the distinction between what is likely and what is entailed.

I think if you were to sort through the old testament, the question of what is an idol is pretty clearly defined as an actual graven image, and there are plenty of passages that reference the corruptibility of the actual idol and explain why it cannot be as powerful as God. I don't want to turn this into a theological discussion and start citing passages, but I think if you limited the question to what the god of the old testament was forbidding, it would be actual carvings and such.

Of course, few limit their reading of the bible to the literal, and the question of idolatry then becomes a far more interesting topic. Even in a non-religious context, a prohibition against idol worship would make sense. The worship of money, success, fame, admiration, etc. would all be idol worship because it seeks something other than that which ought be worshiped. In a religious context that which ought be worshipped is the true god who is actually God, but in a non-religious context, god might be service to others, compassion, or other such things.

So, idol worship is to pray to that which is not most holy, and what is most holy I suppose can be debated. I would say, though, that someone who accepts the concept of the holy and the sacred, even should they apply it in a non-religious way, will present and behave as do the religious because it is doubtful that a thinking person would find holiness in the mundane.

And that takes us to the first commandment, which is whatever it is that you hold to be the most sacred is the only thing you are to consider god. I do think 1 and 2 are wrapped up together. Again, though, if you read the Old Testament literally, you may not accept this interpretation because in Exodus, as you may recall, the Egyptians received the 10 plagues as proof of the supremacy of God (Yahweh) as being more powerful than the Egyptian gods. That is, it is clear there were many gods, it's just that the God of Israel was the strongest and for that reason God (Yahweh) was to be accepted as the baddest of all the gods. Again, though, I don't think the literal interpretations yield as meaningful results as the interpretative.

Unless that boy keeps his finger in the lesbian's vagina, Denmark is going to flood.

But that is simple. It will be all red, without a trace of blue.

I think we need to have embedded poll options to get better data. For example, if I ask did you vote for Trump, then if you say "yes," I would then ask you your blood sugar level, and if you then said between 70 and 90, then I would ask you the consistency of your bowel movements, and if you said "like coffee grounds," then I would ask you at what age did you regain your virginity, and on and on until I had an accurate profile.

Discuss.

There was no prize to be awarded; however, I would be happy to draw the winner a picture of her own choosing and I will upload it. Let me know what you'd like.

What was the prize for winning? I can't remember....

The results clearly indicate that the Atlanta Falcons will win the Super Bowl. That's American football, the sort where you can use your hands.

Does look like we're saying the same thing independently.

If "physically identical but not conscious" isn't a contradiction (and so conceivable) then consciousness isn't physical. — Michael

"Physically identical but not conscious" is in fact a contradiction unless you define it in a way that it's not. To a physicalist all the world is physical. For two things to be identical, they must be physically identical. So, if you asked a physicalist if a conscious person and his doppelganger p-zombie were identical, he'd say of course they aren't; they can't be. The distinction between the two means the distinction must be physical because that's all there is.

To the point of what I can conceptualize, I cannot conceptualize of two identical entities (a regular person and his corresponding p-zombie) having no physical differences if I assume physicalism. It simply makes no sense to assume physicalism and then to assume non-physicalism at the same time.

Here is the p-zombie argument:

"According to physicalism, everything that exists is either physical or depends on what is physical. So if physicalism is true, a world that is an exact physical duplicate of our world, with nothing else in addition, will be an exact duplicate of our world in all respects. Therefore, if there is a possible world that is an exact physical duplicate of our world but is different in any way, e.g. it has different (or no) psychological properties, physicalism is false. If two physically identical worlds have different properties of consciousness, those properties of consciousness don’t depend on physical properties. So if zombies are possible, physicalism is false and property dualism is true." http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A22014/dualism/The%20zombie%20argument.pdf.

My problem is in the bolded area. I just don't follow how this isn't obvious question begging. Aren't we assuming by the antecedent "if two physically identical worlds have different properties of consciousness" that consciousness is not physical? How can the two physical worlds be "identical" if they have differing consciousness unless we've already assumed that consciousness is not physical?

My point here is that if we have World A with conscious beings and World B with p-zombies, yet, from an outside observer they are measurably the exact same, then we either have an epistemic problem (we need better measuring devices) or we have a metaphysical problem (consciousness cannot, in principle, be measured). Since there are two equally valid options, we've proven nothing. Only if we accept as a given (which seems a premise of the p-zombie argument) that consciousness cannot in principle be measured, then of course consciousness is a non-physical entity. That, though, is the case only because we accepted it was as a given - thus the question begging.

What have I missed?

Please, don't detract from this thread with pointless attacks on my integrity and heritage. If you could, just respond to the poll so that we can finally get some hard data on this issue.

Do you think his real name is Scotty or they call him that just because he's Scottish, sort of like they call me Jew?

What is the distinction between the physical and non-physical?

I edited my last reply that you already responded to, so I wanted to alert you to that so that you'd go back and look at it and laugh really hard because it's like super funny.

If we can conceive of a p-zombie then consciousness isn't physical
We can conceive of a p-zombie
Therefore, consciousness isn't physical — Michael

Is that the first premise, or should it be "If we can conceive of a p-zombie, then consciousness is not reducible to behavioral states." I don't see how the thought experiment offers an explanation for the metaphysical composition of consciousness. It seems that consciousness must be composed of something and it therefore has to have location somewhere. Why must we worry about whether it's composed of molecules and such (i.e. physical material) or something more mysterious?