Low income vs. High Income = TB vs. Diabetes! — Agent Smith

I've had both. TB when I was about 9, and DB since about 45. But on a second take, I think they are both poor man's diseases. The difference lies in TB in poor countries, DB in rich countries, but you are poor if you got either in their respective countries.

Low income vs. High Income = TB vs. Diabetes! — Agent Smith

:lol: :point:

Whoever posted that picture of the starving proletars eating a sumptuous dinner, and angry faced, because they can only afford it once every five years, is a genius.

That last phrase was so poetic It compelled me to organize it. — john27

Thank you! Do you do windows as well? Sorry, I mean, Windows.

Are you an editor? Or a kindred poetic soul. I asked Amity that, and she told me to go fuck myself. Or maybe that was to some different expression I expressly expressed.

Come to think of it: poems don't ever get edited. This is a shame and a blessing at the same time. Shame, because there is too much bad poetry; good because may a poem be good or bad, it is still precious and special to its creator.

If a poem gets edited by other than its creator, it is fucked. If a poet asks someone to edit his or her poetry, he or she is fucked, along with the shiny poem s/he rode in on.

I just realized, that I need to clarify this: Your organization I did not view as editing, only as enlightening. Thanks, I appreciated your work and am actually impressed by it. Although that's a covert compliment to myself as well. Oh, well.

Self suggested happiness's margin is infinite! Poof? — john27

I have to apologize for not considering this. I only went on the fact that you said you've been poor. In a way, that's a marginalized stratum of a super-wealthy society... Poof.

I am my own reward, hence I am in a perpetual state of bliss — john27

How do you handle the effect of the diminishing return of marginal utility? Or maybe I shouldn't have asked that. Oops. :-)

(or so I tell myself.) — john27

self-suggested happiness is where it's at. I was for a number of decades grossly overweight. Women looked at me (men too, but that's not of interest to this parable). Because women gave me longer glances than usual, I felt I was very attractive. I felt attractive for twenty years and never got laid. But it did not matter, because I was attractive, according to my delusion, and that made me happy, which is an illusion, just like the mind, which feels the happiness... Yikes.

No I can't see that. — jancanc

I can see that.

I remember arguing with some people that wars in the old times were over life-supporting resources, and those wars were justified, because it brought the population size down to a manageable volume, something that could be supported by the rare resources. I said the reduction was permanent. They said the reduction may have been useful also if it were temporary. I did not want to accept that, and argued against it. But then I went home, and next morning I realized they were right.

I suggest the same thing to you. I think, and I think without malice or mockery, that you are too much wrapped up in this. Maybe if you sleep on it tonight, tomorrow morning you may begin to see the light.

Just a suggestion.

Atwell is saying that, for Schopenhauer, the knowledge we have our our actions is unconditional insofar as it is not mediated by the subject-object relation. We have immediate access to our willing which is not conditioned by the PSR. Atwell is stating nothing regarding the effects of our actions, but only speaking of the knowledge we have of them. — jancanc

I read your argument. To me you are saying that Atwell agrees that our actions are known to us, as long as they are not mediated by subject-object. But when they ARE mediated, then you bring in effect. The very act of considering the object of our action, nullifies the premise, and changes it. Can't you see that?

we are fed by the celebrity phenomenon that rewards make you happy, and the richer you are, the bigger the reward.

Money is certainly rewarding.

But only to a point.

Recent research has unearthed that we feel elated (temporarily very happy) when we get a reward that is way bigger than expected.

Many instances of human responses can be explained by that:
1. Why a spouse takes a compliment from the other spouse for granted, but when from a stranger, then values it highly.
2. The first heroin hit is the most pleasurable.
3. The first orgasm of your life blows you away.
4. The more money you win and the earlier in your gambling life, the more addicted you get to it.
etc.

What causes unhappiness? I guess the opposite: not meeting expectations. Which includes unexpected disasters in one's own life, such as a loss of a limb or a loss of an iPhone due to theft.

But death we all expect and yet we fear it most of all mishaps in life. I explain that by saying that we expect to live forever, and death is not something we actually believe will happen. Hence, the afterlife myths of many cultures.

Atheism is a new movement, it is born of science, knowledge, and the lack of gambling for survival. Atheism rejects the afterlife (not all; Buddhists, who have no god, therefore they are atheists, believe in reincarnation) because it views it as a stupid idea. Atheists, at their best, call them as they see them. No evidence -- no speculation.

In each of the instances you cited, the process is the same, but a fissioning nucleus is split by the beta particle of a previously fissioned particle. That's A. B. is that after fission, the newborn nucleus is different from the nucleus before the fission. So the fissioned nucleus goes under a change; the "parent" is different from the "child". The parent nucleus is not creating itself; it is creating a different nucleus.

The same can be said of all your other examples.

One more thing that may shed more light on the irrelevance of your examples: a parent can give birth to something, to the parent's child, which child is the same or very similar in structure to the parent. The child, however, is not the parent. Your examples, some of them, ignore this very subtle concept.

Self-reproduction at some point was the standard. — Hermeticus

yes, but self-reproduction still creates a child by a parent. If a cell reproduces itself, there are two after that; not the same number as before the split.

You can argue that they are both children, or you can argue that one is the parent, and the other, the child. But you can't argue that they are both parents, because both did not exist before the split. And a parent's definition is to exist before its child gets born.

Wood is created by trees, therefore trees cannot be made of wood, because they cannot give birth to themselves. Is there a flaw in this logic? — pfirefry

The concept of tree and wood are different. Wood does not give birth to anything. Trees give birth to wood, in a sense, by the process of creating wood; but wood does not give birth to trees. The process of giving birth to trees is via a seed, and seeds carry no, or very little fibre. (Which wood basically is.) Seeds carry a lot of energy, protein, and the specific DNA to the species.

You can say then, how can a DNA give birth to a DNA. Well, they are different, separate DNAs. One is the successor to the other one. Much like a mother gives birth to a child, the child is almost the same as the mother, but the child is still created by the mother; the mother did not create herself. and the child did not create itself, despite the child and the mother may be indistinguishable from each other by some measurements.

To carry the simile farther: wood is to trees as, say, bones and muscles are to a child. Is a child created by its bones and muscles? No. Are the bones and muscles of a child created by the child? Well, arguably, yes. But the formation of the child starts way before the formation of muscles and bones.

trees are made by papa trees and mama trees, in its most basic.

There is also no requirement for the creation to be the same or to resemble its creator. A man makes a chair. Or a man makes a pen. Or a woman makes a thermonuclear reactor.

Now, you can argue that an illusion is very different from a mind, and on that basis, the creation could be explained.

But the basic premise in the claim makes that impossible. "A mind is an illusion." There is no room left for argument. There are illusions; and one of them is the mind. A mind is a proper subset of the illusion. There is nothing about a mind that is not an illusion. That is what the basic premise states.

I am only doing logic here, not the research for the validity of the assumptions in the claim. If you wish to reword the claim, then you're free to do so; but you can't do that without altering its meaning.

I mean I'm low income, but I don't think i'm screwed. I wonder why. — john27

(Because screws are very expensive?)

Everyone has their cross to bear. A rich man can be just as screwed and unhappy as a poor man.

If it's organic based, in America you are screwed if you are poor, but can get over the unhappy if you are rich. If you are rich, you can afford therapy and drugs, if you are poor, you can't. Also, in a more severe situation, you can afford guns and ammunition if you are rich, but can't if you are poor. In certain jurisdictions, I imagine, they hand out handguns and bullets in soup kitchens along with essential food items, such as rolls of toilet paper, because "bearing an arm" is not only a privilege, but also a right of every American citizen.

Illusion is a function of a mind.

If mind is an illusion, that the mind itself perceives, then it's not possible, since something can't be borne by its very own self. A woman can't bear herself as a baby, a god can't create itself as a god, etc. A creation of any sort has a necessary condition that its creator predates it.

So "the mind is an illusion" is a necessarily wrong concept.

but where do you see Atwell doing that? — jancanc

What part of your action don't you know? Gimme one example.

What part of the effect of your action don't you know? Literally inifinite effects, of which you have infinite numbers that you don't know.

What is the name of logical error committed in the second premise? — jancanc

Not every fallacious reasoning has a name. Whether this one does or not, I don't know. But there may be a chance that it does not have a specific name for its type.

I believe Atwell is wrong. Schopenhauer has no claim over the EFFECT of our actions. Schop makes a claim over our actions, and that's where the buck stops.

Atwell is bringing in the "we don't know", which applies directly to the effect of our actions, not to our actions.

Therefore I maintain that Schopenhauer did not commit a logical mistake.

Human behavior, if you'll take the time to notice, breaks this easiest route rule - we do things in very inefficient ways, most of the times failing to take the shortest route between beginning (of a project) and its end. In essence we violate the Principle of Least Action.

Since deterministic systems have to adhere to the Principle of Least Action and humans consistently violate this principle, is this free will? — Agent Smith

I'd say the delay in finishing the project is not due to not taking the shortest route most directly and efficiently. It is because the man, the person, the mind, is taking care of more than one project at any given time. These projects compete for the attention of the individual. Much like as if there were several rivers, and one had to run between all of them, lifting gates to let the flow go, and then putting the gate back before running over to another river to lift ITS gate.

The person must prioratize his projects. Random events also thwart him. I think his responses to the priority-building and attending to unplanned activities necessary to attend to will make him get delayed in the project of the main, but it's not due to lack of efficiency, but due to lack of available attention.

My explanation does not exclude or include postively the determnistic approach or else the religious one. My explanation just shows you why the river gets to flow uninterruptedly, and why the project is still under deterministic build, despite the stoppages on the work of the protject.

:up: :gasp: :grimace: :death: I agree. Our fate is surprise, then fear, then death. Makes perfect sense.

If only I could learn to do the same... All in due time I guess. Or hope so, anyway. — john27

I so totally misunderstood you when I formulated my sermon.


Could it be, that your wish is not to find love, but to turn to be a giver, provider and protector?

Am not saying anything more until I get confirmation on this latter set of assumptions. I don't want to over analyze your situation again, for the second time, in a vein that needs not at all to be explained.

If only I could learn to do the same... All in due time I guess. Or hope so, anyway. — john27

Courage, Brother. Or Sister. Or someone on any point on the spectrum.

Remember three things:

The student appears when the teacher is ready.
Love is not learned, but a mental state based mainly on illusions and wishful thinking.
True love presents when the wishes and illusions fit truly or by imagination another person in one's life to an acceptable degree and vice versa.

-------

This was a rather unromantic lesson on the science of romance. Remember: romance, i.e. love, is not a science, but an art, an intuitive, emotional and social process.

-------
Sorry about pontificating and over-pontificating. YOU STARTED IT!!! / :-) and I am very glad you did.

:grin: Skeptic mode, eh? — Agent Smith

Yeah... tired of the stupidity of the world. They see written "yes" and they will say it says "no", because their cognitive dissonance can only be rationalized by altering facts, bona-fide, written, unaltered and unalterable facts. But no, rationalization must win, at all costs, even at the cost of truth.

I am so totally tired of that. You see it everywhere, and if you correct them, they put up stupid arguments, or else, they lynch you.

Maybe Socrates wanted to send a message - exercise caution - and if it meant resorting to hyperbole, so be it! — Agent Smith

Maybe.

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates himself was never recorded as having said this phrase, and scholars generally agree that Socrates only ever asserted that he believed that he knew nothing, having never claimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

Wikipedia is full of total bullshit, spewed by Socrates-worshipping blinded nincompoops.
1. Everything Socrates said was derived by Plato's account. Saying that this was falsely derived, and other things were rightfully derived is BLATANT CHERY-PICKING.
2. Socrates ASSERTING something is equivalent to Socrates CLAIMING that something. Scholars? they are stupid, stupid eggheads who know not their anuses from hole in the ground.

I am getting angry, because I've heard these arguments (trying impotently to whitewash and falsify this statement's magnitude) so many times that it's coming out of my ear.

I am finished here. I ought not to let my anger take over me, but I can't help it, seeing so much ingornance, stupidity, and falsification of FACTS.

That he believed he knew nothing is not a contradiction, — javra

Did he say "I believe I know nothing"? Did he? DID HE??? He said "I KNOW nothing". There is no mention of belief there.

Please don't accept your imagination as facts.

I think Socrates was just bitter he couldn't know everything, so he chose the next best thing. — john27

A case of sour grapes? And people argued about that for millennia. I think you're right. No matter what a great thinker one is, one is still bitter for not being all that one can be.

You had me as a reference but you did not quote the part you found pertinent.

I think we think too much into texts. If he wanted to say that you think Socrates really wanted to say, he could have said that. Not to disparage you, but you said that. Why could then Socrates not say that?

I believe that people say what they mean. If Socrates said "I know nothing" he meant he knew nothing. Everything else, interpreting it by twisting and changing the text is illegal reasoning. If he said "I know nothing", he did not mean "I know some things but not really, and the things I know I am skeptical about, for ignoring the skeptic is the ignoramus' way". Or anything of the like. He said "I know nothing" because he meant to say, "I know nothing". I don't accept any other explanation.

Prometheus gave man fire to watch the world burn — john27

You say that he wanted the fireplace to keep every home warm. That's very nice.

I don't have a family. I used to think he stole the fire to show the gods who really was the boss. The little, weak, fragile man, a mere mortal, but cunning as hell and brazen as a house-fly.

Now that I have love in my life, I think he stole the fire to keep his love in comfort -- no effort spared.

Socrates was totally wrong. He knew some things. He did not know everything, but he was far from knowing nothing.

I wonder why he would want to undermine his own reputation by an obviously false declaration of how things are.

Is it implying that assuming dualism is a possibility that all science must be false in order for that to be the case? — TiredThinker

Yes, it's implying that. But that implication as knowledge is also knowledge, which science is; so it says that its own claim is false.

You find yourself in a situation equivalent to Zero's paradox. "I am lying." If it's true, it's false; if it's false, it's true.

The article writer was, in my opinion, a total nincompoop who could not see beyond his nose. Or else he was a total genius and his claim proves the absurdity of our existence.

In the "Hitchhikers' Guido to the Galaxy", a man became immortal, via a freak accident in a warped experiment. Many people tried to emulate the experiment, but with no real success.

The guy then spent the entire eternity of the rest of his life by insulting every sentient being in creation.

I am not saying you should do the same or similar, but it's as good a hobby as anything else is.

I believe it was Oscar Wilde's favourite novel. — Tom Storm

even his last name suggests he wasn't into direct asceticism.

Not necessarily, because in that respect I could not differentiate myself from others, morally. I'd be treating everyone how I would treat myself. — john27

How are you handling your task of brushing the teeth of 7 billion people every morning and after each meal? Or, more literally to the word, if you buy a chocolate bar to treat yourself, each time you muster up enough dough to buy seven billion chocolate bars, one for everyone? :-)

Or, even more closely to the word: how do you treat yourself when you commit a moral failure? I don't know, but do you treat others the same way when they either commit the same moral failure, or when you perceive them to commit the same moral failure? :-)

What if they commit an act of moral failure that you never commit? :-)

(I know these are dumb questions but I still felt like asking them.)

And when you get to the pearly gates and Peter himself asks your warrant for presenting yourself, are you going to say that you're there because Joe the whackdoodle sent you? — tim wood

I don't know. My belief says that my soul dies with my body. Do they take bodies at the pearly gates?

Those people most plausibly Christian express their beliefs as beliefs. And among the things they believe in are the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. Believe being the key word, failure of which to understand is fatal to understanding Christianity. — tim wood

I actually agree with your definitions, Tim Wood; I am only concerned that other Christians have different opinions on what constitutes being a Christian. That's neither here, nor there (or either here, or there, as per your wish or desire stated earlier), as per myself.

I've heard Christians claim that I am Christian, because I had been Baptized. Which I have.

You either are, or you are not. And to forestall objection, the alternative is that no criteria apply, and that a Christian (or pretty much anything else) is whatever anyone says it is, all contradictories included. — tim wood

Can you convince any other Christian of this? Including Jehowa's Vitnesses, and Baptists?

No, you are trying to hang an opinion on me, which does not fit.

But you failed this time. Just a declaration of one aspect of Christianity is NOT a definition. For instance, a car is blue.

How do you define "car"? By saying it is blue.

But blue does not define a blue car. An aspect of Christianity does not define who a Christian is.

Enough of this already. Blinded by faith. To you your religion is more important than logic and truth. I respect you for that, and I am exiting with these words -- please don't expect a reply from me again.

and well documented. — Tobias

Not only well documented, but the documentation or intuitive reasoning makes a convincing argument. In other words, if the criteria are present, they only count if the interesting point put forward is well reasoned.

You provided yet another interpretation to compete with all the others, already given: "The search for meaning of Christianity is the meaning of Christianity." Thanks for proving my point. How many Christians would agree with you? Again this is an impossible question to answer, because we need to agree first on who a Christian is, and for that we need a definition, for waht we have precisely 2,930 different and widely differing ones...

How can you make sense of this, SpaceDweller?

As far as I know, as regards an undergraduate's philosophy essay, a well-written essay about philosophically interesting ideas will be marked down, whilst a well-written essay about the debate within philosophy about interesting philosophical ideas will be marked up. — RussellA

Quite so. People are scared of new ideas, and the most scared of the newest ideas are the most mediocre philosophers. Please see my two essays, and the comments... but I'm preaching to the choir.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper