Bergson's critiques were philosophical in nature. He didn't question the scientific aspect, i.e. simultaneity of measurements.

Definitely lots of problems with the current system.

Then they'll figure out what works for them. It's about aware awareness not truth.

Disease has deep cultural roots, so it isn't just a matter of irresponsible individuals; it's also irresponsible social practices. — Bitter Crank

And this is part of the debate. Some people would rather see more money going to better food, cleaner water, cleaner air than to more medicine - which is already almost twice as much per capita than other developed nations. More money on medicine doesn't mean better health. In fact, it appears to decrease life expectancy.

what we see is that reproduction is the prime motivator - flowers, nectar, colorful feathers, pheromones, aggression, etc. Without reproduction life is impossible — TheMadFool

No, that is what you see. Give it time. You may learn to see more. Not everyone is like you. Be happy with who you are but let other people see life differently.

As all studies on the subject conclude, it is lifestyle choices that are far and away the leading causes of chronic illnesses and healthy people (especially young people who get it) are getting a little tired of paying for the poor lifestyle choices of other Americans. 20% of the GNP is going to medical care. This is astronomical and it is growing.

The WHO says that 80% of non-communicable diseases are lifestyle related. Their is a reason that the U.S., which spends 80% more on medical care than than the 35 other developed countries and has the worse life expectancy. A pretty sad situation but not considering considering the lifestyle choices of a large part of our population. The science of medicine actually is different once you leave the U.S.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11095-008-9661-9

"This year, more than 1 million Americans and more than 10 million people worldwide are expected to be diagnosed with cancer, a disease commonly believed to be preventable. Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity."

There is a difference between marketing pitches and motivations. Money is a great motivator for our leaders. They'll say say what they need to say to get elected.

As for the population, each person develops their own personal philosophy toward life based upon their own experiences, and the differences are enumerable.

Even in that case: if I pass and enforce a policy that I believe to be wrong in the benefit of my own interests, this implies that what Im doing is wrong, and that perhaps some other policy would be right, therefore carrying an implicit moral claim. — rickyk95

I think you may find that right/wrong rarely enters into the equation of policy-makers and their donors.

Among the place, what is right and wrong is diverse as the number of people in the populace. People all have their own views on what is right and wrong.

Bye, bye. Miss you.

Actually it is prescription drugs like opioids that are killing 10s of thousands of people each year and hospitals that are killing hundreds of thousands, making hospitals the third-leading cause of death after after cancer and heart disease. So in a sense staying away from hospitals is a good lifestyle practice right after eating veggies and fruits.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Wars use to be great money makers for government and the top 1% but nowadays healthcare is much more lucrative. Tens of $trillions and growing. And it's people such as yourself who serve as unpaid marketers for this money-making machine.

Sorry, you're reading it wrong, many cancers are not preventable. And people who don't know about food toxins or environmental hazards can't prevent their cancers either.

Looks like WHO has their work cut out for themselves.

The argument against single payer is that government just skims off the c top, as it consumes more and more of the economy. 7 of the 12 richest counties in the U.S. circle Washington D.C. as government gets fatter and fatter off if the hard labor of the working class. People are pretty tired of being slaves for the Bureaucracy. It's really quite out of control.

unexpected diseases like Cancer — Thanatos Sand

Not according to WHO. Cancer can be quite predictable: e.g. cigarette smoking, excess drinking, environmental hazards, obesity, food toxins, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if all of those toxic drugs that people are being prescribed are causing all kinds of cancer. We do know that taking prescription opioids is definitely a no-no, but physicians keep prescribing and killing. Go figure.

And that has nothing to do with the many congenital conditions and unexpected diseases, cancers, or physical ailments from accidents that can cost hundreds of thousands to pay for. — Thanatos Sand

There World Health Organization is attempting to address this "misunderstanding".

http://www.who.int/chp/chronic_disease_report/part1/en/index11.html

MISUNDERSTANDING #4: chronic diseases can't be prevented
Adopting a pessimistic attitude, some people believe that there is nothing that can be done, anyway. In reality, the major causes of chronic diseases are known, and if these risk factors were eliminated, at least 80% of all heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes would be prevented; over 40% of cancer would be prevented.

80% of premature heart disease, stroke and diabetes can be prevented

Economics aside, for many it is a moral issue but the morality gets very muddy.

People need to learn to lead healthier lives and how to take care of themselves. Other countries pay half as much per capita with better results. U.S. is absolutely in last place when it comes to life expectancy in developed countries and last year, for the first time in decades, life expectancy actually went down. The U.S. had become a cesspool of drugs, MRIs, and if course prescription opioids that are killing 10's of thousands of people each year. Out medical industry has become a killing machine and some people are reluctant to finance even more of the same.

It's such a huge list, Michael , if debatable premises. Surely you don't expect anyone to begin a separate discussion of each one? As I said before happy with your list. And don't worry if no one reads all of it, Kant was equally verbose and became famous.

The overreach is in the form of forcing citizens to purchase a service from private industry. This is unprecedented.

Single payer, such as Social Security and Medicare had been around for some time. However , for good reason, citizens feel that all of this is becoming its own private industry where government keeps growing for its own benefit.

There is a component of politics that deals with social issues, but how these issues are dealt with is a mess. The allocation of resources is much more straightforward, the top 1% get the largesse.

So is Skepticism. But your idea is an idea that calls for an explanation, and doesn't have one.

...a brute-fact.

There are literally no

But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. — Michael Ossipoff

facts. Just pieces of a puzzle that I've observed that sort of fit together. This is what I believe philosophy is all about. A detective game that is constantly uncovering new clues. As with some French philosophers, I am much more interested in discovering and understanding than I am with being right.

What observation, experiment or experience doesn't fit the idea that we're all just the animal, and nothing more...without any extra-corporal component? — Michael Ossipoff

Is this one of your brute-facts? You have to describe all this is animal, all that is extra-corporeal, and I'll let you know what I think of this brute-fact.

I really can't address your idea until you unambiguously lost all of the brute-facts. There appear to be quite a bit based upon what I've read.

The debate centers around these concepts:

1) Runaway cost of medical care in this country that is approaching 20% of GNP, by far and away the most costly medical system in the world-with the worse life expectancy outcome.

2) To pay for this largesse, Obamacare forced everyone to buy insurance called the government mandate. A substantial portion of the population considers this gross government overreach.

3) The government subsidizes some portion of the population, but for a variety of reasons including certain mandated coverages such as pre-existing conditions, free yearly checkups, etc., affordable health insurance is becoming more and more difficult to find as younger people are dropping out of the system, forcing some insurers out of states or greatly increasing rates.

4) Costs are rising at an unsustainable rates.

It's a mess, but Google these key ideas and you may find some unbiased discussion but it is unlikely.

Several questions: can experience (by itself, in itself) be true? Is experience a kind of proposition? — tim wood

Experience is a process not a thing. As far as I can tell, traditional logical syllogisms cannot deal with processes. I was never able to bring myself to read Alfred Whitehead, but brief description on Wikipedia which describes his process metaphysics, that is based upon the concept of extended experiences (I believe he was influenced by Bergson), is less dependent upon logic and more a result of creative intuition.

most people here will say that value is subjective, something which humans project onto the supposedly blank canvas of the Universe. — Wayfarer

While my experience on this forum is not exhaustive, I have yet to witness anyone describe value in this way, since most probably consider themselves part of the Universe and not separate and apart from a blank canvas called the Universe.

As for me, value is an interaction between between me and that which I value, making it more of a feeling, the feeling varying in intensity.

But the suggestion that we're nothing more than the animal, just what we appear to be, is obviously by far the simplest suggestion. — Michael Ossipoff

It's actually even more simple to say I am what I am and that's all that I am, which was Popeye's philosophy. For some this may be enough but I am more curious.

Biology and natural-selection give us a pretty good description and explanation of the animal that we all are. — Michael Ossipoff

Well now we are getting into ultra-brute facts, which is more than a statement, but rather a whole if all kinds of ideas, opinions, conjectures, stories, etc. I can't even begin to address such a waterfall of brute-facts.

Be happy with your philosophy but don't expect anyone to try to understand it.

I have heard people going farther than that and saying things like abortion (and probably infanticide) is people ensuring the reproductive success needed to preserve their genes. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Specifically the genes are trying desperately to preserve themselves. You can actually hear them huffing and puffing if you listen closely to their little lungs.

It must be very disappointed, then, to find it has such a mind. — Ciceronianus the White

He found some meaning to his life. What's the problem? You prefer I AM ROBOT?

Well, how about an extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository, made of quanta consisting of Mind?

Why is there that extra-corporal distributed holographic memory-repository made of quanta consisting of Mind? — Michael Ossipoff

It's an idea, that all it is. A wonderful conception in my opinion. And the reason I use it is because all the pieces of the puzzle for nicely and it is useful and practical idea. I never claim any facts, because I think the term is used to state a strong belief. My beliefs are moderate because they are constantly changing.

If you wish for me to identify all if the unexplainable brute-facts in your metaphysics, simply create an unambiguous list of all of the facts that you rely on and I'll explain why there are anything but inevitable but rather are a product of your own personal belief system which you may share with others. My guess is you have very strong beliefs which is why you considered them facts.

Is there something "brute" about the system of facts that I enclosed in asterisks, above? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes. It a list of ambiguous terms that describe a supposedly other list of ambiguous terms each of which would be a brute fact assuming they they could actually be identified in some sort of unambiguous manner.

The issue with your metaphysics is that it is a laundry list of ambiguous brute facts. Impregnable yet also unintelligible.

The way to eliminate facts is just to understand that there is no reason to even use such a concept. All we have are beliefs with a varying amount of intensity and consensus. The word fact is used to give gravitas to a belief.

Have there been any philosophical criticisms of this thought experiment and its conclusions? (The train experiment) At times it appears to follow inconsistent reasoning. — FreeEmotion

Probably the most demonstrative and damaging philosophical critiques of Relativity derive from Bergson's approach to the issues raised.

http://m.nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity

Bergson had no problem with the scientific issue of determining simultaneity via use of clocks. His objections were giving Relativity and Relativity's definition of time, ontological status, which he thought was absurd (I agree). The time (duration) is the one that we experience, clocks and simultaneity are only products of this duration and the mind that is experiencing it.

Stephen Robbins provides his own Bergsonian critique of Relativity here:


https://www.amazon.com/review/R17WTYWUM6881A

Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being​ passed on to somebody else. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

One really has to ponder to scientific view of life to find the sleight of hand that is being performed.

There is no altruist. There are the altruistic genes (the flip side of Dawkin's Selfish genes). So science simply anthromorphizes the gene and squeezes some behavior in it. Genes love to multiply. People don't love each other, neurons so, etc, etc, etc.

Science observes some small stuff move and then attributes any and all behavior to the small stuff. Somewhere there always had to be the mind. There is no getting away from it.

Our thoughts on this matter are in similar proximity. I would say that the essence of life is we, the mind.

The meaning of life is more about what we at doing and why we are doing it. In this respect, I believe we are all well how evolving by exploring, experimenting and learning. Why? To better understand what or who we are?

What makes them equal is their causal influence on each other. — Harry Hindu

In a dualist interpretation the question remains what is at the boundary? How does mind cause an action on a physical? What creates the impetus for matter to cause some action of the mind.

My own preference is to think of the two as one and the same, with different substantiality, sort of like the difference between the quanta wave and the electron (the electron being a wave perturbation).

Phsyicalism is a metaphysics that says that this physical world is independently, fundamentally, existent. ...and is simply what is, and is all of reality. — Michael Ossipoff

This is what you might call a brute fact. I would call a belief.

There are as many varieties if physicalism as there are off Buddhism. I would say physicalism is a point-of-view that declares everything is physical, but then again this is my POV of physicalism.

Anything that has mass has energy, is matter. A thought has not mass, possibly no energy, can't be measured, therefore isn't matter...therefore all is not physical. — Anthony

It gets tricky here. A neurologist may simply say that a thought are some little neurons going off here or there. Watch the TV show Superhuman where the resident neurologist explains everything that is happening by neurons going bang, bang, bang here and there. That is the scientific explanation for all things mind related. Sometimes he proclaims it is complicated and definitely Superhuman.

How does a thought equate to a mass of neurons? How is the chasm crossed, is a philosophical discussion not a scientific one. What I am suggesting is that the motivator of the discussion is an active, experimenting, learning, evolving mind.

You have completely missed the point. — charleton

Isn't that what I just said. Physicalism is like Hinduism (everything is Hindu), everything is physical. It's a point of view. If you can name it, experience it, measure it, think of it, whatever, it is physical.

Only physicalism can answer how it is that your mind can be altered by drugs. If the mind is note physical, then you have a job on your hands to say how this works. — charleton

Physicalism simply says that mind is physical, drugs are physical, chemicals are physical, molecules are physical, atoms are physical, elections are physical, electron clouds are physical, quantum it's physical, and it's all affecting each other.

Ok. Just replace physical with mind and it's all the same, only mind becomes the impetus.

The fact of evolution by natural selection does NOT mandate and programme of eugenics, selective breeding nor the sterilisation or termination of so-called mutations. — charleton

Right. Natural Selection merely is the prime motivator for the helpless glob of material called humans that naturally creates such actions as eugenics, sterilization, selective breeding (science is well on its way to promoting this), and of course mass genocide. Natural Selection did it all. Sort of like a vengeful god.

One really has to get their arms around this story and really understand why science/industry/government collaborate to promote it.

Reality is what each of us experience. It is a process, not a thing. Similarly, knowledge is an accumulation of experiences. It is a process, not a thing.

Hence, as processes, reality and knowledge are continuously evolving (changing) and are subject to interactions/processes of each individual. To embrace such a model is to believe in it. It is not a concrete thing. It is subject to evolving experiences.

It's my understanding that the physical world is composed of things that have a causal influence on each other. It must be that things that have a causal influence on each other are made of the same substance. If the physical world has a causal influence on our minds and our minds have a causal influence on the physical world, then it must be that they are all of the same substance - physical, mental, information, or whatever we decided to call it (and does it really matter?). — Harry Hindu

This would be the case if mind/physical were given equal status.

In some cases mind is transformed into some illusion (I guess this the essence of materialism) , thus giving it less status - I suppose. This kind of thinking is hard for me to get my arms around. I prefer to think of physical being more substantial and mind being less substantial but - and this is a big but - mind being the motivator, the impetus. In this manner, the living body is a fully holistic living body.