That is exactly what the doctrine claims. that the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement. — charleton

I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed. Clearly, you don't understand what "literarily" means.

Thanks.

I find the entire space hugely interesting. The price action of bitcoin is all the public knows about. It's a tremendous distraction. Distributed ledger technologies -- that includes blockchain and some non-blockchain solutions that are out there -- are going to be the greatest force for disintermediation since the Gutenberg Bible. — fishfry

Can you explain what value the distributed ledger technologies have in clear terms? I've been asking many people this, and so far nobody has given a very clear and satisfying answer.

A new thread, and a poll listing the moderators. Click the button of those that you think should not be moderators. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, you reckon that poll is gonna stay OPEN? >:O Give me a break... >:O

We already had a poll to alter the guidelines once upon a time. It got closed in less than 12 hours after all the moderators rushed to vote >:)

And these means of production require workers, and workers require wages. So reinvestment does include hiring people from profits made. — Thorongil

No, the hired workers will pay for themselves out of the revenue that they produce. So you are hired today, but you don't get paid until after 30 days. In those 30 days you will obviously produce. So that's where your salary is coming from.

And what are those terms? — Thorongil

The actual value that the product/service brings for the client.

So when told by Tiff that she shouldn't edit ND's posts, why did TimeLine reply "I'm learning"? @Noble Dust should clarify which of his posts were edited.

As far as I'm aware, TimeLine edited her own post, not someone else's: — Michael

Do you see Noble Dust's post that reads "PIZZA"? That was edited by TimeLine. And when asked about it, she said she did not moderate him. This is totally unacceptable and a clear violation of the terms of service.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/132474

By submitting Content to thephilosophyforum.com for inclusion on the Website, you grant The Philosophy Forum a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify [my emphais], adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your Content.

Excuse me - modify doesn't mean you get to make up things someone never wrote. That modification is supposed to be for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting MY content (and not that of the moderators).

So how was TimeLine's modification done for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the content of the respective poster? If this is not a flagrant and clear abuse of power and direct violation of the terms of service I don't know what is.

It would seem that that could be an argument against the notion that there are swaths of people who just want to live on welfare and would only be a drain on the economy. I mean, even welfare participants are consumers, no? — Posty McPostface

From a scientific point of view, consumption is actually a drain on the economy, not a blessing. Those people are consuming goods and more resources need to go into their production for that reason. The same effect could have been achieved if the government spent that money instead of lazy individuals, and probably it would be spent with more wisdom too.

Well, assuming that it's true that some people would only want to be on welfare and not produce or create anything of value, then the Pareto principle states that at least 20% of those people would account for 80% of the negative outcome, as in, wanting to be on welfare but not doing anything productive with their time. Assuming, that to be true, then there's really no means to prevent that from happening, or is there? — Posty McPostface

I think the Pareto principle loops on itself in a fractal kind of way. I'm actually reading an interesting book about this at the moment - kind of a practical business book - called 80/20 Sales and Marketing (if you swim in some business circles, I'm sure you heard about it). It's quite good, lots of actionable advice, and opened my eyes to a few things. But it's also very "salesy" - what else could you expect from a marketer lol. Basically, the idea is that 20% of the 20% account for 80% of the 80% of the results - meaning 4% account for 64% of the results.

Personally, I use the Pareto Principle to think about little things that can give significantly better results, or I use it to allocate my time basically. But I'm not set in stone about the 80/20 breakdown. It may be 90/10, 95/5, 70/30, etc. But for sure a lot of the results are obtained by few of the actions. In terms of my own personal revenue, the 80/20 rule holds quite well. Few clients make up most of my revenue, and the others are tiny in comparison.

Yeah; but, what if they hate their job and want to educate themselves or go back to college, or pursue areas of interest that don't entail an immediate return on material investment, like arts, history, or music? — Posty McPostface

Then if they want to pursue those things, they clearly do want to work.

I do agree though, and think the Pareto principle would apply; but, have no idea how to deal with that. — Posty McPostface

What do you mean you have no idea how to deal with that? With what?

So, what are your thoughts about basic income or any other alternatives that I'm or others are not aware of? — Posty McPostface

I think people who can work should be given the opportunity to work in what they'd want to work in. If someone is not capable to work, then I think they should be given basic income, or otherwise they should have all their food/healthcare/education/water/shelter needs taken care of. And I think if someone is able to work, and they refuse to work, then they shouldn't be given anything - I mean it would be unfair for someone who can contribute to not contribute and freeload on the back of others no?

The trouble is Hume has an implicit and unstated a priori notion of things: that's how he indexes bundles in the first place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not quite sure I follow. An impression is like redness. A thing (or substance) is like whatever has redness as a property. So redness by itself is an impression and an impression is not a bundle. A bundle is multiple impressions which occur in constant conjunction with each other - that's how we get our notion of a "thing" or "substance" according to Hume in his Treatise from what I remember.

Hume didn't begin with undifferentiated impressions. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The impressions are differentiated from each other (redness is not blueness), but they aren't things. Do you mean to say that being a thing - having substance - is merely being differentiated?

Our sense impressions are no less given by understanding than space, time or causality. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, I'm not sure how to understand this statement. Kant and Hume would ask you if space is a color, if space is hard, if space has a taste, a smell, etc. So if you answered no to all those, they'd say that space cannot then be an impression. An impression is like a property. It's like red, or hard or sour, etc.

It's a great way to standardise structured products for instance and sell them to interested parties. — Benkei

Could you break this up for me in more detail please? Sorry, but I'm not fully up to speed with all the technology behind it.

If profits are used to reinvest, and reinvestment entails hiring and paying more workers, then profits are in fact used to pay wages. — Thorongil

Reinvestment doesn't include hiring. When we speak of investment, that never refers to hiring people. Hiring people is not an investment. Investment largely refers to buying further means of production - factories, tools, machinery, technology, etc. etc. or building new property. That's why real estate is so central to an economy.

In the GDP breakdown - consumption, investment, net trade balance, and government spending - the investment factor only includes expenditure residential property, on capital goods (tools, machinery, factories, plants, etc.), and changes in inventory levels.

... are in opposition. — Thorongil

So no, the profits are never used to pay wages.

That assumes there is some mechanism or criterion other than the market used to determine the true, objective value of things. — Thorongil

I already outlined it to you:

What is of real interest is the real value of a service since over time the market will be approaching it. So how is that calculated?

It's calculated by trying to convert the activity to monetary value. Marketing is very simple to convert to monetary value. If I do a Google Adwords campaign for you, then the value it has brought you is whatever sales it has generated for you. If it has generated $1,000,000 in sales for you, then that's the value added. Now the value of my services ought to be a certain percentage of the value added. Probably around 10% is fair, so $100,000 for me.

If you design and develop a website for someone, the value of it is in the traffic it can generate and how well it converts. So how well does it rank on Google? (that determines organic traffic) and what percentage of those visitors get converted to clients? and how much is one client, on average, worth?

So if I make a website for an oil tank producer, where one sale is worth $1,000,000 on average, that is entirely different than if I make a website for a local coffee shop, where one sale is worth $5. I will charge the oil tank producer a lot more, even though it's about the same amount of work for me.

So this talk about the market deciding this and that is actually bullshit. When you start pricing stuff, you will see that you price them mainly based on the value added - that also allows you to justify the price. In some rare cases, when there is a craze on the market for example, and everyone wants a certain type of website, nobody can keep up with demand, etc. then, of course, you will raise prices above whatever is supposed to be the real price. — Agustino

The real price corresponds to a percentage of the value added, regardless of what the market says. The market may tell me Bitcoin is worth $20,000 dollars, because there's a frenzy going on. That doesn't mean that's its real value. Its real value must be computed in scientific terms, not in what people are willing to pay for it. People may be idiots.

c) having ideas that can translate to new goods and services. — Thorongil

Yes and no. Entrepreneurs aren't inventors, most of the time. Bill Gates didn't invent an operating system - he actually bought a system off someone else, secured a big contract with IBM through his mother, and that's how he got started. When an entrepreneur talks about creating something new, innovation, etc. what they really mean is that they're looking to figure a different market segment whose needs aren't addressed as well as they could be by EXISTING technology, and then repackaging that technology in such a way to address that need. Steve Jobs didn't invent the iPhone - he figured out that there was a market segment of high-value phone users that weren't addressed by others, and he packaged already existent technology to address their needs. So he understood their needs better than others, and then gave them what they wanted at a large scale. So I think this idea of the entrepreneur as an inventor, as a kind of scientist who discovers new technology, etc. is a myth - it wouldn't surprise me if it's common in the US though. All of the above is really marketing. It is one and the same thing with marketing. You cannot do marketing and not understand what to provide to people. And marketing is included under distribution, since marketing is theoretical, it needs actual logistics to work.

Another issue with Marxism is that it fails to account for human creativity and innovation, focusing instead on labor and material products from an antiquated late 19th century perspective (it is no accident that BC's chosen example above is of an early 20th century car plant). — Thorongil

In terms of practice, I think it's definitely true that Communism, as it was implemented, did fail to account for creativity and innovation. However, what communism excelled at was technical skills. If you compare the performance in maths of Russian kids with American kids, there is no comparison. And it's not because the Russians are more creative (they're not), but it's because they're highly highly technical.

Whatever it is that Marxists do or don't understand, successful societies require the function of the entrepreneur -- which is, essentially, a creative actor. A socialist economy would need creative actors as much as a capitalist economy, because perpetually changing circumstances require new solutions.

There are lots of people who perform entrepreneurial functions in non-profit organizations, for instance--almost always in the first few years of the organization. — Bitter Crank

I agree with this.

Let's say that there was a sudden eruption of multi-antibiotic resistant infections, which tended to be disfiguring, disabling, or fatal. New NGOs would be formed quite quickly to address local conditions. Creative actors would lead the search for programatic solutions. Universities would start new labs to research the issue, and there would be a search for technically able scientists who could also think outside the box. The same would go for governments and health companies.

Most of the people working to solve the infection problem would not be in businesses: they would be elsewhere. The same would be true in a socialist economy. There would be inventions addressed to existing or new problems. Creative managers would find fresh solutions to supply chain problems--and so on--PROVIDED that the socialist economy did not operate as a command economy like the USSR. Command economies aren't altogether bad, but I think they tend to be arthritic, and may develop blindness to new circumstances. Capitalist economies can do the same thing, of course, but through different mechanisms. The obsessive drive for ever higher profits, for instance, blinds stockholders to the impending disasters of pollution, global warming, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yep, I actually fully agree with this too. The thing is, command economies are not much different from capitalism in the day-to-day running of things - the only big difference is generally that there is a lot less social mobility, so if you happen to be born in what is considered a bad social class, then you won't be able to move up regardless of your genius. The other issue is that it's all very regimented - very little individuality is allowed. If you were a homosexual, or a very religious believer, or you had a mental disorder, etc. then you would have been persecuted and treated very badly back in the days of Communism.

But the boss in command economy would still yield the influence the entrepreneur yielded. After the fall of communism, by and large, 2 classes of people started private businesses. The first class was formed of government bureaucrats (including things like lawyers) and people who worked in the intelligence agencies. They are what have become known over time as the oligarchs, and a large part of their wealth came from managing government privatisations. And then there were also factory managers - who knew what the process was like and so could start on their own.

There were some exceptions in terms of common people starting businesses and doing relatively well, but those were relatively few. In the entire Eastern bloc, it was still mostly the very same people who had the power in the previous regime who maintained the power in capitalism.

Also, another important feature is that initiative was squashed in most people. The way you did well, was by doing whatever your job happened to be well, and not paying attention to other things or getting involved in them. So many people after the fall of communism lacked the initiative to start in business.

Your concern is that entrepreneurs would not be properly rewarded, and as far as I can tell, a socialist economy would probably not adequately reward you for your wonderful new ideas. How creative managers, inventors, other creative types would be rewarded is a question which I do not have an answer for. In some socialist arrangements, they might be very highly rewarded, in others, less so. But "high rewards" is relative. — Bitter Crank

How would payment differ in a socialist economy of the kind you're talking about above? How would payment be allocated, and who would decide?

I'd be interested to read more about this actually if you had some material you could recommend?

Most people, it seems, would prefer to make less income, as long as their economic standing compares favorably with others, rather than making 10 times as much, but being the least well paid man in the company. So, if they develop a product worth a million dollars, they might not get $100,000 in reward. Maybe they would only get $10,000. But... that $10,000 would be relatively high, compared to others. — Bitter Crank

That does seem to be so. Post-communism, I can tell you for sure that most of the people who used to work in state factories now complain that in the past the factory boss had the same car they did, went on holiday in the same place they would go, a few hotels distance and now the boss has a $100,000 Mercedes, goes on holiday in Monaco, and drinks champagne every day, while they have a cheap second-hand car and cannot even afford to go on holiday. They see this as the problem more than the fact that now, comparatively, they have access to higher quality goods than in the past, better medical care, etc. I think it may also be that the rich class here can be quite abusive (in terms of ostentatious behaviour towards those worse off than them, something that I've come to really hate), since most don't come from well-educated families - and this is a lot more so than in the US or other places I suppose. Any idea how such things can be prevented?

Maybe they would only get $10,000. But... that $10,000 would be relatively high, compared to others. — Bitter Crank

Hmm... so would wages overall decrease in a socialist arrangement?

I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism: — Sapientia

Well, Buddhism, after Christianity, is the religion I've studied the most, by far. The fact that you're giving me a citation from wikipedia means nothing. You have to understand the context and the precepts of Buddhism. Yes, there are versions of Buddhism where the Buddha is worshipped (more as a representation of perfection, than as the actual person), but salvation is still not achieved through worship, but through liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Worshiping the Buddha may, however, improve one's karma.

Also, I don't see what your quote is even telling me... that Buddhism is based on the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, one of the many Buddhas?

But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine. — Sapientia

Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then?

That's not what I mean by magical, and I think that you know that, which would make this reply from you nothing more than sophistry. — Sapientia

Yes I am aware of that. I just explained why you don't find this magical - you're used to it.

What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous. — Sapientia

Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with.

You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there.

Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it.

It is analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that a lot more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost. — Sapientia

Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that?

You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed? — Sapientia

Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case.

That's the problem. — Sapientia

>:O

Again, that's the problem. — Sapientia

No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more. — Sapientia

You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ.

Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion. — Sapientia

Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story.

That's a different sort of faith. In religious contexts, faith is an absolute trust in a foundational belief that permits an entire worldview to develop. — Hanover

And yet, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

It seems to me that the kind of faith required in a religious context with regards to salvation (and deification) is similar to the kind of faith one has when one chooses to get married, or chooses to start a business, etc. Without this kind of faith, whatever action (or desired result) seems to be impossible a priori.

Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation. — Hanover

What I'm saying is that the subjective change in the wafer (and in the girl) is more real than the unchanged appearance (which is their physical composition, how they look empirically, etc.). It seems to me that our difference is over the fact that you take a "real and literal" change to necessitate a change in physical composition and appearance, as this is what "real and literal" means to you. That's fine, I just disagree that that's what "real and literal" means. I take the significance of the act to be the "real and literal" thing, which does change in the case of transubstantiation - while the physical appearance, look, feel, etc. are just appearances and not "real and literal".

But I'm fine if we agree to disagree on this matter. We've managed to have a decent conversation in this thread without any insults and the like (as it was common between us), so that's a good thing I think (Y) .

This isn't entirely responsive. Is the child's faith the same faith as the Catholic's and why doesn't my faith in unicorns establish the existence of unicorns to the same extent rocks exist? — Hanover

Why do you think faith can establish existence by itself?

Faith may help you discover the existence of something, but it cannot establish it. For example, you have faith that this woman won't cheat on you if you marry her. You need the faith to commit to marrying her, otherwise you wouldn't marry her and would never find out that she won't cheat on you. But faith doesn't by itself make it true that she won't cheat on you either. It's just a condition for the possibility of it.

The Catholic position is that the replacement is actual and literal. — Hanover

No, that's not what the Catholic understands by actual and literal. If you go from looking at a girl and not being horny to looking at a girl and being horny, the girl for you literally and actually changes - what she means for you has changed - of course we don't mean by that that the girl physically has changed in any way.

Actually yes, for your child to clean his room when he is told to "clean your room" he must have faith that those words correspond to the actions that you expect him to undertake. There are psychological conditions (including schizophrenia) which can develop out of double-binds of the form of the parent saying one thing, but really meaning another as illustrated through his action - that confuses the child and makes him lose his/her faith in language and the possibility of communication, including communication with one's self. And a child's faith is not difficult to shake.

Now I'm not saying I actually agree with this Kantian position, but you (or BC or anyone else in this thread) have yet to provide any refutation of it.

In my opinion, the Kantian position, much like the Aristotelian position is one of the strongest there is in philosophy.

I think there is a problem with this account of causality: the role of the states themselves is eliminated. We walk away saying causally is only in our minds, rather than recognising it inheres within the things we encounter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You should be careful here when talking about "things" we encounter. Kant fully buys into Hume's model that there are no "things" we encounter as such (I'm stating a lie here technically, but I will correct it soon - take it as truth for now). We only encounter bundles of sense impressions. An apple isn't a "thing", it is the sense impression of red + sense impression of soft + sense impression of sweet/sour + etc. etc. So this bundle of senses right? That's what Hume says. So there is no "thing" there according to Hume, just this constant conjunction of sense impressions.

Now Kant comes along, and says, wait a second, there actually is a "thing" there that we experience! But Hume is right, the thingness cannot come from the sense impressions themselves - there is no "thingness" given by the senses. So where does the thingness - the substance - come from? It comes from the understanding - that is Kant's answer.

So you are right, causality (and space, time, etc.) does inhere in the things we experience, but not as sense impression, as matter or as content of what we experience - but rather as their form, which is given by the mind. We don't experience things directly - naively - but through these forms. So there are no objects or things outside of the phenomenon. And the phenomenon is sense impressions organised by the understanding.

Right, but that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions, which is what you said. That only means that his status is. So you didn't word your claim properly, and you should therefore be more careful in future. — Sapientia

Okay, I see.

Yes, Muhammad, in accordance with Islam, as I understand it, is only second in importance to Allah. Although he is nevertheless, and undeniably, a central figure in that religion, with a similar, albeit not identical, status as that of Jesus in accordance with Christianity. — Sapientia

Glad you agree.

The tales of Buddha, whether he was a historical figure or not, and the underlying messages, are of great significance to Buddhism. Buddhism is named after the Buddha. Statues of the Buddha are so plentiful and recognisable that they're akin to the cross of Christianity or that image of Ché Guevara. — Sapientia

No, Buddha isn't important. What is important is salvation. That's why Bodhidharma says "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". You really do have very little understanding of these matters, and that doesn't surprise me, since I don't suppose you've invested years of your life, as I have, studying the religions. So it's something to be expected, you cannot be good at something if you never engage with it. And I don't hold that against you, but you should be aware of it.

No, I've addressed that. At first, I refused to humour you, and I explained why. Then, eventually, because you were so persistent, I answered you in a more engaging way here. So, the real question is: why aren't you addressing my response? And why should I persist in tolerating what seems to amount to nothing other than game playing from you? — Sapientia

Because it was a red herring. I illustrate how below.

I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong internally, based on its own presuppositions. I wouldn't expect it to happen at all, because it is without precedent to the best of my knowledge. — Sapientia

What is the "it" that you wouldn't expect to happen? And please don't say transubstantiation, I want you to explain to me clearly what transubstantiation is, so that you can decide if it happens or not. So we're back to my original question. What would you expect to happen if transubstantiation were true? Even if you reject is because you don't agree with its presuppositions, you're supposed to be able to tell me what you would expect to happen if it were true.

I acknowledge emotions because I've experienced emotions. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, experienced the magical transformation that we're discussing — Sapientia

Yes you have - you've experienced horniness. That is a magical transformation. One time a girl means nothing to you, the next second she means everything. Something magical happened there. You don't call it magical only because you're so used to it, you've come to expect it.

Really, Agustino? That's not what I meant. Do you think that I'd deny that? I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the ghost. There wouldn't be any physical trace of the ghost that I experienced. So you'd only have my word to go by that the experience I had was indeed an experience of a ghost and nothing else. But my word is not enough. I could have misinterpreted what it was that I experienced as a ghost, meaning that, in fact, it might've been something else. That is was something other than a ghost is much more plausible. — Sapientia

It's not analogous to the Christian revelation. The Christian revelation wasn't experienced by one or two people, but by literarily hundreads. One person's testimony, depending on circumstances, context, etc. may be worth nothing.

I'm making the point that if science cannot apply, which it cannot, given that it is unfalsifiable, then what else do we have to go by? — Sapientia

Science doesn't apply in many things that we do. It doesn't apply in economics for example, in sociology, in psychology, in history etc. etc.

unfalsifiable — Sapientia

It's not, I already showed that we can detect the effects of mystical experiences on the brain.

Do you think that if we could see all the dings in siches, would they seem closer to what we think our senses tell us, or might they seem unrecognizable and alien? — Bitter Crank

"Seeing" the dings in siches makes no sense, since all seeing takes place in space. There very likely isn't any space out there per a Kantian viewpoint.

The sense impressions that we receive are of an unknown origin. We never experience these sense impressions directly. We experience the phenomenon. What's the phenomenon? It is the sense impressions organised by our minds through the forms of space, time, causality, etc. So you never feel pain in-itself. You always feel pain out there in space, in the leg.

You never experience hunger in-itself. You experience it as related to your stomach, in your body.

Now your entire experience is like the computer's desktop. To delete something from the computer, you grab it on the desktop and drag it to the trash folder. Now, in reality, this isn't how things really get deleted. That's just the interface which helps you do it more easily instead of entering some code in the command prompt to do it for you (or instead of giving 0 and 1 instructions). So likewise, eating food is merely the interface that shows you how to get rid of hunger - it's not what really happens to get rid of hunger. Eating food (cause) and ending hunger (effect) is merely the desktop interface of life that allows you to deal with survival most efficiently. So you project your hunger out there in space, you attach a cause to it (food, which you also project out there), and then proceed to eradicate your hunger by means of eating the food. But whatsoever really happens behind this interface is a mystery.

So, how do we know there is such a thing as a thing in itself? — Bitter Crank

Because we do not control the sense impressions that we receive + space, time, causality, etc. are a priori forms of the mind, and cannot be really out there. Kant follows Hume here who shows that causality cannot be a sense impression. But yet, we nevertheless necessarily perceive things in terms of cause and effect, Kant notices. So how does that happen? That can only happen if those are a priori forms of our minds always imposed on top of sense impressions to organise them (since we've eliminated the possibility of them being sense impressions themselves).

So the sense impressions are not of us, and the forms which are of us aren't real, they merely organise our impressions.

Now the first point that we have sense impressions that we do not control is obvious.

The second point, Kant argues at length for in the CPR. If you just read the introduction and the transcendental aesthetic (around 10-20 pages maybe, it's short) you will see the arguments made with regards to space and time being a priori, transcendentally ideal. If you agree with those arguments, then there must be a thing-in-itself, since sense impressions, whatever they are, are always organised by these a priori forms of cognition (space, time, etc.) which don't really exist out there. So whatever you perceive is only the desktop interface. Now if you see the desktop interface, and you see that it is a desktop interface (since the forms in which experience is given are a priori), then you know that there must be a computer behind.

So really, to summarise, it all revolves around if space/time/causality, etc. are sense impressions, and if they are not, then where are they coming from? If they aren't sense impressions, where else could they be coming from?

Which profit is paid in wages and used to reinvest, which results in hiring more workers and paying more wages. — Thorongil

I would think wages, replacing equipment, buying materials, etc. would come out of gross revenue not profit. Profit is net revenue, isn't it, what is left over after the costs of production and allied costs are covered. — Bitter Crank

Profit is technically never paid in wages - that is incoherent. Profit is defined by the equation of Revenue - Costs for one fiscal year. If I hire people, they will produce revenue, which will pay the cost of hiring them. So I never hire people out of profit - nor are wages ever paid out of profit.

However, profit is important since it represents savings for a business. Savings (and profits) are required for me the owner to (1) take my fair share out of the business, and (2) have what to reinvest to grow the operations, expand production, etc.

Profit margin is especially important. The higher my profit margin, the greater risks I can assume in my investments - the more daring I can be. If my profit margin is very low, if I make very little profit, then I can't take many risks, cause I have no protective cushion in case my risks fail to pay off. Nor can I increase wages, so I will be making working conditions harsher over time, struggling to make enough.

Also, the "value" the workers produce is determined by the market. — Thorongil

Yes and no. This is a speculative way to determine value, and isn't of much interest. What is of interest is the underlying value. We know that the market can undervalue or overvalue services or goods. What is of real interest is the real value of a service since over time the market will be approaching it. So how is that calculated?

It's calculated by trying to convert the activity to monetary value. Marketing is very simple to convert to monetary value. If I do a Google Adwords campaign for you, then the value it has brought you is whatever sales it has generated for you. If it has generated $1,000,000 in sales for you, then that's the value added. Now the value of my services ought to be a certain percentage of the value added. Probably around 10% is fair, so $100,000 for me.

If you design and develop a website for someone, the value of it is in the traffic it can generate and how well it converts. So how well does it rank on Google? (that determines organic traffic) and what percentage of those visitors get converted to clients? and how much is one client, on average, worth?

So if I make a website for an oil tank producer, where one sale is worth $1,000,000 on average, that is entirely different than if I make a website for a local coffee shop, where one sale is worth $5. I will charge the oil tank producer a lot more, even though it's about the same amount of work for me.

So this talk about the market deciding this and that is actually bullshit. When you start pricing stuff, you will see that you price them mainly based on the value added - that also allows you to justify the price. In some rare cases, when there is a craze on the market for example, and everyone wants a certain type of website, nobody can keep up with demand, etc. then, of course, you will raise prices above whatever is supposed to be the real price.

And this differentiated pricing is called market segmentation (or "some things are more valueable to some people"). You can make basic packages for all the low-value clients, which are a lot. They all get the same relatively low price. But you'll make special deals for the high-value clients. That's why in football matches there are cheap tickets, and expensive tickets too. And the expensive ones are many many many times more expensive than the cheap ones. On airlines, there is economy class, business class, and sometimes first class too. Same idea.

The value workers produce must be determined in the same manner.

exploitation — Thorongil

Some degree of exploitation seems to be inevitable.

I recognize Marxism as the immoral and irrational utopian ideology that it is. And some utopia it proposes! Workers managing plants in perpetuum. What a veritable paradise! Who knew that human depravity, poverty, and misery could be solved by workers managing plants! — Thorongil

Marxists don't understand two things. (1) the value added by the entrepreneur, and (2) the necessity of profit (savings) in order to invest.

The controversial one, point (1), is explained by the organisation of production and distribution. The entrepreneur adds value by (a) organizing production to achieve economies of scale and efficiency, and (b) creating the right distribution channel to distribute the goods produced. So someone absolutely must sell what gets produced. That's what most CEOs do - they close big contracts, and a few big contracts easily make up even up to 80% of the company's revenues.

Now, when the entrepreneur outsources his manufacturing to China, he adds value by being able to (1) raise wages, (2) lower price, (3) increase profit margin. However, that's looking at it only internally. Because the Chinese manufacturer puts the whip on his people, who are forced to work in the most despicable conditions imaginable. Now, by paying the Chinese manufacturer, the entrepreneur basically accepts that these people get tortured, so that he (and his workers, customers, shareholders) can be better off. He is of course not directly morally responsible for the torture of these people, since he isn't torturing them himself. However, he is a contributing factor since he gives money to the ones who do, helping perpetuate their work. I don't think this form of indirect abuse is avoidable in today's economy.

In a way, it is much like the second law of thermodynamics applied to economics. You can only better your own internal condition by destroying what is external to you, much like living creatures are negentropic and lower their own internal entropy by increasing external entropy by much more. So a country - say America - gets better off, necessarily at the expense of others.

--------------------------

Now, on a different note, wealthy people in my view have another duty/responsibility that has largely been forgotten today. The wealthy should finance learning, culture, art, etc. Much like during the Renessaince, the Medici family, for example, would bring artists to their court, give them all that they needed to live, and then let them produce their art free of worldly cares. The artist, the philosopher, the musician, etc. cannot survive without the businessman and the politician. So the two are both needed to make society work.

What does it mean to experience our experience? Isn't that how we get in these philosophical muddles in the first place? Do I experience the tree, or do I experience the experience of the tree? — Marchesk

That Kantian point is that the world is our representation - we construct it. So basically our mind takes the sense impressions that are of an unknown origin - and then organises them through the forms of space, time, causality, etc. - into the representation that we're all so familiar with. Think about it like a computer's desktop - that's our representation, and all that we ever see. So we represent the world - we create a model of it - that helps us navigate it (ie survive). That model is of course not directed towards truth, and therefore very likely it's not what the world as thing-in-itself is really like.

For Kant, our models are not constitutive of things we experience, of the things-in-themsleves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Hmm I'm not sure about this. The things-in-themselves are precisely what is impossible for us to experience or know for that matter.

It's not that our experience of the sun constructs the sun, but instead that our experience of the sun is our construction (literally our existence, rather than anything we might be aware of). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Agreed. But we only ever experience our experience, ie the model.

He's pointing out our knowledge can only be our own, not claiming our minds create the things we encounter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

He does claim that our minds create space, time, causality, etc. But of course our minds don't create sensation itself.

Unfortunately, this is not any sort of account of either causality or ontology. Kant's mistake (or maybe more so, the mistake of many readers of Kant) was to fail to properly recognise he was talking about us, about our knowledge, rather than the actions of things we perceive. Cause and effect does not need us to occur. Our minds, in the sense of being awareness of logic meaning, are not involved at all. It's other things which are doing it-- the sun, a ball thrown through a window, someone's body producing a state experience of a limb which isn't there, etc. The doing of cause and effect is another life entirely. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think Kant's fundamental point was that we add cause and effect to the world. So whatsoever we perceive will be seen through the lens of cause and effect, much like if you were wearing red spectacles, you'd see everything in red.

None of them were ever "impossible (shown clearly false, if one has happened)," only insisted to be "impossible" by humans interested in ensuring people thought the event in question couldn't happen. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Agreed.

This is an equivocation fallacy. It is tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the normal scientific order of things. It is not tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the common consensus experience. — Hanover

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think we could even have, in principle, the scenario you're suggesting above. I mean that sort of presupposes that we could have a situation where something occurs commonly in experience, but yet is not incorporated in our scientific theories. So what would that look like? We have a law, like the law of gravity, and people sometimes levitate? Wouldn't that be incorporated in the scientific law then? Surely the law would have a statistical element then, much like quantum mechanics. For the most part, things fall down to earth - but sometimes there is a fluctuation in the gravitational field, and they float.

So the problem with your whole scenario, more succinctly, is that we had the notion of miracles before we ever developed the notion of a scientific order of things - before we knew of laws of nature. So how did that notion of miracles develop? Clearly, it couldn't have developed to refer to things which were contrary to the laws of nature - what it referred to were things that were deemed to be impossible according to common experience.

but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man — Hanover

I fully acknowledge that there were billions of people who didn't/don't consider Jesus to be the Son of God.

What I meant by history being divided into before Christ and after Christ, was simply a remark that pretty much everywhere we talk of 100 BC and 2000 AD, and where is the separation point? It's very close to the birth of Jesus. So we have divided our history into before Christ and after Christ. Clearly Christ's influence, regardless of what you believe about Him, has been tremendous.

Usually, the pencil has to move before the paper is marked. That's because the mark is made by the pencil leaving behind part of its graphite tip on the paper. For that to happen, a force is needed that breaks the bonds that bind the graphite that will make the mark to the rest of the tip. That force is created by moving the pencil sideways which, by the operation of friction, stretches the bonds to the point where some break. — andrewk

Okay, but as far as I see, this just moves the explanation back a few steps. It's not directly the pencil that causes the writing, but through the means of the graphite breaking. The graphite breaking (cause) and the marks appearing on the page (effect) are simultaneous.

Alternatively, you can replace the pencil with a marker. As soon as the marker touches the page, its liquid already colours it.

Or you can think of an example such as a potter shaping the clay with his hands. The cause and the effect are again seen very clearly to be simultaneous.

This provides no argument that the cause is simultaneous to the effect. What you seem to be saying is that the potential for the effect is simultaneous with the actual cause. But your conclusion is just a category error. It's like saying that the potential for sunrise tomorrow morning exists simultaneously with the actual setting of the sun tonight, therefore the sunrise is simultaneous with the sunset. Do you see the category error of mixing actual and potential in this way? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope, you didn't understand what I was saying.

They're not analogous. Did you read what I said about supernatural claims? — Sapientia

Yes, I've asked you a question about that. Did you answer it?

If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly. — Sapientia

I think the same about you. If we were discussing Alexander the Great and his conquests (including details about the tactics he used in specific battles, etc.), of which we know based on the testimony of people and virtually nothing else, I'm sure you'd not be questioning the historical validity of those documents nor the historicity of the events. But when it comes to religion, you do question it, because you're set against religion on an a priori basis.

The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. — Hanover

It is supposed to be inconsistent, it is a miracle. If it wasn't inconsistent, how could it possibly be a miracle?

That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. — Hanover

Well right, if you were used to it, then the Resurrection would be nothing special, as it claims to be. Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ.

I'm not sure how this makes any difference ethically, we can't all have power either so the rich are still taking from the poor, if I extend my list to 'stuff', land, freedom from toil and power, it doesn't change either the truth of it or the ethical implications. — Inter Alia

Sure, but that's just the nature of the world, we have finite resources. For me, the ethical implication is that if you had the good fortune to be born in a relatively okay place as a middle-class person, (or even a poor person in a Western highly developed nation), then it is your duty to do everything in your power to make the world a better place. That does entail being capable to wield power in the world yourself, no?

The extent that some people will go to in an attempt to justify something so patently absurd is fascinating. — Sapientia

I honestly don't see anything patently absurd.

The point is, mere testimony is woefully insufficient when it comes to supernatural claims. — Sapientia

What would be sufficient then?

And it certainly isn't credible to grant something the status of being factual or historical on that basis alone. — Sapientia

Right, it's based on historical documents. I grant that Alexander went to India and fought there, etc. based on very few historical references - much fewer than when it comes to the death and resurrection of Christ. So why don't you go up in arms about granting factual or historical status to Alexander's conquests, but you're so upset when it comes to Jesus? The Bible does say that the Cross will be a scandal for unbelievers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — Sapientia

Sure, and I think we do have extraordinary evidence.

What's interesting is that none of this is necessary. You don't have to bite the bullet and opt for the weaker position entailed by organised religion. You can be a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ's teachings, without adopting this untenable literal interpretation of scripture. — Sapientia

St. Paul said that if Christ has not Risen, then the faith is in vain. He was right about that.

Define mystical experience for me. — Buxtebuddha

A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality.

Some programmer who creates an app and becomes rich didn't exploit any poor person. — Thorongil

Well BC or any communist pretty much will never grant you this. In a certain sense, they are right. I make no qualms about the fact that we all live off the blood and sweat of others, and must inevitably do so. You simply cannot survive, even for one day, without abusing the labour of others in some form or another.

Computers, for example, are manufactured by people who work in the most miserable and inhuman conditions imaginable in China. Why? Because they do it cheaply. So if you want to work as a programmer, you need a computer, so you will finance the work that keeps that abuse going to pay for your computer. The West just externalises that abuse to other places nowadays, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any. I'm conscious of that fact, and also conscious of the fact that we can't do any better, and until any change takes place, I will go on and profit from it since I don't really have a reasonable alternative. But that doesn't mean to be unaware of it.

Try not to abuse your own fellow man - that is within your power - but to not abuse anyone, isn't within your power.

I didn't mention anything about sources of wealth, I said that no-one wants just money, they want the stuff money can buy. — Inter Alia

That's wrong. I want to be wealthy, but that's not because I want the stuff money can buy (I'm quite ascetic by nature, and have very low spending on myself) - if by that you're imagining freedom from having to work, luxuries, etc. I want to be wealthy because I'm very ambitious and I want to implement my vision in society. And that requires power, with financial power being just one of the key elements.

If he's not going to do any of these things, then what is he going to do with the money? — Inter Alia

Call the shots in terms of organisation of production AND of society, obviously. Finance academies, affect culture, etc. Literarily, in today's society, no work will get done - including politics - without the money. And if you don't have the money yourself - say if you're an NGO, then you're at the mercy of whoever has the money for the changes you actually implement. So if you want to control the whole process, there is no escape from controlling the economical aspect.

In that case, there must really have been witches, given all that testimony. (Look up witch trials in the early modern period). — Sapientia

Not comparable. First of all, in those cases there exists testimony in both directions. And most importantly, the testimony in that case was very often forced out of people by violence, etc. And the testimony was of the nature "I think she was a witch". It wasn't of the form "I've seen the Risen Christ".

In the case of Christians, if you affirmed that you saw the Risen Christ you would be persecuted. In the case of witches, you would be rewarded if you turned a witch in. In the case of Christians there exists virtually no testimony against the Risen Christ. In the case of witches the testimony was always ambiguous. In the case of Christians the testimony was of the nature of personal experience - seeing the risen Christ. In the case of witches, the testimony was of the nature "I think she's a witch".

So really, your laughable attempts aside, you have to try harder ;)

I'm not saying that. I'm saying, once the kid is born, they have been forced. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, by mother nature maybe.