I think a big part was not simply curiosity, but fear — Mikie

For me, I think it was primarily curiosity. I just want to know how it all fits together. What happens next. It's fun, play.

I look around and notice it with others too. We simply don’t realize that so much of what we think we know, who we listen to, the company we keep, the jobs we do, and how we generally live our lives, is determined by factors beyond our control — the time and place you are born, your genes, your parents and upbringing, your culture and peers, early life experiences, education, etc. — Mikie

That's one of the main points of philosophy - to get beyond those cultural, social, and historical factors to the extent possible.

I give the floor to you. — Alkis Piskas

To go off in a bit different direction... I just finished "What Is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology" by Addy Pross. In it, he goes to a lot of trouble to define survival of the fittest in chemical terms as dynamic kinetic stability, which removes a lot of possibly unwanted implications from the process. This is from one of Pross's papers:

Recent developments in the relatively new area of chemistry, systems chemistry have been showing that the reactivity patterns of simple replicating systems may assist in the building of conceptual bridges between the physicochemical (inanimate) and biological (animate)worlds . A key element in that effort has been the ability to specify and characterize a new kind of stability–dynamic kinetic stability (DKS), one that pertains to replicating systems, whether chemical or biological In the ‘regular’ chemical world, stability is normally associated with lack of reactivity. However, in the world of persistent replicating systems, the stability of the system comes about because of its reactivity. The system is stable in the sense of being persistent, by its being able to maintain a continuing presence through on-going replication. Of course, in order to be able to continue to replicate and maintain a presence, the system must be unstable in a thermo-dynamic sense. From that perspective it can be seen that a biological system which is characterized as ‘fit’, can be thought of as stable, but its stability is of that ‘other kind’, rather than exemplifying the more familiar thermodynamic kind. This way of thinking then enables established biological terms, such as ‘fitness’ and ‘maximizing fitness’ to be equated with their chemical equivalents: Fitness = Dynamic kinetic stability (DKS); Maximizing fitness = Drive toward greater DKS. — How Does Biology Emerge from Chemistry?

The linked website also includes a review of the very short article.

We went out of our way to keep him here, — Jamal

I appreciate the effort. I don't envy you the balancing act you have to perform.

I think I mentioned that other book, which Apokrisis mentioned. — Wayfarer

I guess you must have recommended it in one of the other branches of the multiverse.

Just finished "What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology," by Addy Pross. I think @Wayfarer recommended it to me, but I can't find the post.

I liked the book. It has interesting detail about how evolution starts, not with life, but with replicative chemistry, which in turn provides the mechanism by which non-living matters becomes living organisms . That's something I was looking for after reading "Life's Ratchet" by Peter Hoffman, which deals more with how life works chemically and mechanically at the cellular level rather than how it began.

The book was a bit too breezy, gee whiz, pop sciencey for my taste. More importantly, Pross had a drum to bang, which he did over and over. His point - biology is chemistry. Reductionism is the right way to look at things. Many times here on the forum I have banged my own drum about reductionism with a reference to "More is Different," an article by P.W Anderson which strongly disputes the reductionist viewpoint. Pross has made me rethink that position, although he hasn't changed my mind. What annoyed me is that I don't see how the dispute is relevant to the information about how life starts that I was really interested in.

Still, worth reading.

An interesting article. Looks like the downed balloon in Canada had nothing to do with China.

https://www.rtl-sdr.com/the-us-airforce-may-have-shot-down-an-amateur-radio-pico-balloon-over-canada/

Peter Ziehan (author, The End of the World is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization) thinks Russia wants to repossess the Ukraine as part of Russia's long term strategy to establish secure western borders and buffer states between itself and (now, NATO). Interests, again, rather than individual obnoxiousness. — BC

Good post. TIL about the roots of World War I. "TIL" is what all us hip youngsters say instead of "today I learned."

One thing that I keep thinking about during the Ukraine fighting - The US shares culpability for how things have turned out. Once the Soviet Union folded, the US and Europe started allowing, encouraging, former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO. Suddenly Russia found itself surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors with military backing instead of subservient client states. I don't blame them for feeling resentful and threatened.

Now I worry we have entered another period like the time before WWI. The lines are drawn, people have chosen sides, nobody will back down, and things are playing out as they will. A little miscalculation could set off very bad things. And then, around the block, there's China which might be heading in the same direction. Frightens me.

Are you saying that any time someone is threatened, extorted, or coerced they should give in to avoid harm?

Are you saying that the harm the Ukrainians are currently undergoing is more important than their national independence?

To me the world seems an amoral and dangerous place (at best). — Tom Storm

I think our different ways of seeing things are probably a matter of temperament, i.e. a way of thinking we're born with rather than the result of learning or experience. I've always seen the world as beautiful and funny. I feel as if I belong here, in spite of some bad things and unhappiness along the way.

I got my wife a balloon yesterday that said "Happy Valentine's Day. — Hanover

That could explain a lot. Perhaps the Chinese were just wishing us a Happy Valentines Day.

My point here is that if the Chinese came up with the grand idea that they were going to hold a camera over Montana and think they were going to see something that airplanes, radar, satellites, Google maps, and passersbys don't already see and that was going to give them some advantage, they aren't quite the threat we thought them to be. — Hanover

It's my understanding that the balloon included antennas for electronic surveillance. Perhaps that's not something that can be done from space. Which isn't to say I don't share your bemusement about the seeming rinky-dinkness of the Chinese balloons.

"Bemusement" is a more intellectual, sophisticated word for "confusion." Alternatively, it is a word for a more intellectual, sophisticated confusion.

"Rinky-dinkness" is a more amusing word for a lack of sophistication. Alternatively, it is a word for a more amusing lack of sophistication.

Makoto Fujimura on Emily Dickinson — Noble Dust

Thanks. Interesting article. I am generally suspicious of articles about poets, poetry, and poems. Writers like to pick them apart and turn them into something else, as if they knew what the poet was trying to do better than she did. This one didn't. It was insightful and respectful.

You started this discussion but haven't participated after the first post. That's considered impolite.

An even-handed and generally reasonable post. I agree with a lot, but not all, of it.

Everything you've argued could also lead to 'so who cares? — Tom Storm

I can understand why someone wouldn't care. I wouldn't care myself except for all the people who hate religion and care very deeply. I don't include you in that group.

Emily Dickinson — Wayfarer

It's always satisfying when poetry does philosophy well.

You and I see things differently.

Can you be more specific — Gnomon

It is not true that particles have been superseded.

There is no evidence It exists or has done anything to deserve your thanks. — universeness

Someone, something, somewhere deserves thanks for this wonderful world.

It isn't. — unenlightened

I'm convinced.

You see, either you bite the bullet of a 'transcendent' person who give s a fuck, or you have a half assed personification of the generality of 'life' which obviously doesn't give a fuck. And why should we give a fuck for that which doesn't give one? — unenlightened

If I intended to bite a bullet, which I don't, it wouldn't be for either of the choices you've offered.

Convince me that it is worth even speculating about this. — unenlightened

Convince me it is worth convincing you.

Thank you. I appreciate the help.

Something living but impersonal? — unenlightened

Yeah, I struggled with the right way to say it. Conscious but impersonal? Not even that really. It's that reality can't be separated from human involvement, so the universe is half-human.

A good case could be made for extending national air space all the way into space, though. — Tzeentch

Do you mean 300,000 feet or indefinitely.

I think just about everyone would disagree with that.

an incident such as this one is quite extraordinary. — Tzeentch

I guess it's obvious from what I've said earlier, but I don't necessarily agree. That's why I was asking for an explanation.

I see all four points as perfectly compatible with my statement, — Tzeentch

I guess I misinterpreted you. I thought you were saying that the US's loss of hegemony would be a bad thing. That assumption on my part was what I was responding to.

U2 reconnaissance aircraft flew on the edge of space, far above what is normally considered "national air space". So technically the U.S. did not invade Soviet air space in 1960. — Tzeentch

According to Wikipedia, the U2 flies at a maximum altitude of about 70,000 feet and the edge of space is defined as about 300,000 feet.

Speaking of the U2, it amazes me that it is still be used now almost 70 years after it was first built. It still looks all cool and futuristic. B52s are still being used too.

The first reason would be, because it's illegal under international law, just like violating national waters is illegal. Both are essentially breaches of a nation's sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Sure. That's why it's an international incident. I still don't see why it is a major incident.

The second is that a nation's air space (especially that of superpowers) is heavily surveilled for purposes of national defense and security. All the missile defense systems in the world are not going to help if the enemy launches its attack when it's already ontop of one's cities. — Tzeentch

That doesn't seem like a plausible scenario.

However in a period like this, where large-scale conflict has already broken out in Europe and can break out tomorrow in the Pacific, an incident like this is not so innocent anymore. — Tzeentch

I didn't say it was innocent, I said I don't understand why it is such a big deal.

More interesting was how the act of shooting down the balloons was viewed, as the Pentagon apparently on several occasions made statements that would imply the shooting down of the balloon may have been unlawful. — Tzeentch

Yes, I found that interesting too, although the consensus of the people referenced in the article is that it was legal. I always assumed it was and I wasn't suggesting that it shouldn't have been.

So … I can’t think how you could solve it. — Jamal

Thanks for the response. It's not a big deal, but I thought if there was a simple fix I could do it. Apparently the picture shows up for at least some people on their mobile phones.

I wasn't aware my thumbs up was notorious. I thought it was charming and idiosyncratic. But no, it happens for other images as well. At the same time, many images do show up on my mobile.

Anyway, we can leave it at that. Thanks again.

It'll probably be easier for you to buy a second phone and see how your uploads work than to get a straight answer out of me. — Hanover

I heard the flip phone is making a come back. There's nothing cooler than slouching back in your chair, flipping the phone so that it opens up, putting it to your ear, and saying "sup." Nothing. Height of coolness. — Hanover

I do enjoy your amusing, ironic fantasies about your own past or present coolness, but, as moderator, do you have anything more substantive to offer? Perhaps some of your brethren do.

Impersonal gods are not worth talking to or (therefore) talking about. Stick to physics, no impersonal god will care. — unenlightened

I don't agree with this. The recognition that it is worthwhile to see the universe, reality, as something living is an important one. It changes how you see everything. It gives something to be grateful to for all we have been given. God as a metaphysical entity is a useful way of seeing things.

All words mean something and may be useful.
A word can refer to an objective reality (ex, water) or not (ex. unicorn).
The OP discusses if "substance" refers to an objective reality of not. — Art48

Well there you go. "Objective reality." It's just a word. Well.. two words. I don't want to distract your thread from where you're aiming it, so I won't take that argument any further.

We're on the verge of entering a period of major geopolitical strife, in which Russia and China will likely band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon. — Tzeentch

I think we're already in that period. I'm very worried about where the war in Ukraine will lead. On the other hand, I think the idea that Russia and China will somehow "band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon," is wrongheaded on three counts. 1) Most importantly, the US's position as "hegemon" is going to over soon whether we like it or not. That's not because of China and Russia in particular but more because other countries, some former third world, are taking a larger role in the world. 2) That's probably a good thing, both for the world and the US. 3) Russia and China are in no position to become hegemons. Russia is very weak except for nuclear weapons. China is still a limited thread, although it is growing. 4) Neither Ukraine nor Taiwan is worth risking a wider war with other nuclear powers. Hey, wait. That's more than three. I could probably come up with more.

First off I'd like to point out that this is a major international incident. — Tzeentch

This is something I've wondered about. I'm not saying it's not important, but why such a big deal? We all already have spy satellites, we all know the other is trying to look at us.

It's worth noting that during most of the Cold War, invasions this deep into the other's airspace were quite rare, and generally avoided. — Tzeentch

This is not true. Look up "U2 incident 1960."

What is strange about these events is that, while invasions of another nation's air space are highly illegal and not very common, reconnaissance fly-overs with satellites, balloons and planes that fly on the edge of space (above national air space) are nothing new, albeit still somewhat controversial. — Tzeentch

I found this interesting article on the legality of the situation. I'm not qualified to judge it's contents, but it seems reasonable.

https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2023/02/05/guest-post-the-chinese-balloon-shoot-down-incident-and-the-law-some-observations/

If China has the means to carry out its reconnaissance in a legal manner in space, why would it invade U.S. air space? — Tzeentch

Good question.

Common sense may say that “Substance is Just a Word” is a deepity. I want to argue it is not: that in a substantial sense (pun intended), substance is just a word. — Art48

I disagree with your position. Saying "Substance is just a word" is as much deepity as your examples except, perhaps, with a bit more subtlety. Maybe that makes it deepitier. It's about language and metaphysics. "Substance" means something to me and to most other people. It is definitely a property that an apple has but my memory of an apple does not. I can hold an apple in my hand and take a bite.

Now, there are plenty of philosophies out there that argue that substance doesn't exist. That's fine, and I don't plan on taking up that argument here, but it's beside the point. The word "substance" means something and is useful. That's how things come to exist - We name them and use those names. And that's metaphysics.

Yes , your pictures show up in my mobile version! — javi2541997

Thank you.

it has allowed me the opportunity to use the expression 'above the din' which I didn't realize until now would be so satisfying. — praxis

Sometimes an opportunity to use a favorite word, phrase, or quote is the best thing about a discussion.

Look. It's not that difficult a question.
Do Christians believe in the God of the Bible, or don't they? — Vera Mont

Of course, but it is my understanding, based on 15 minutes on the web, that most do not consider the Bible infallible or inerrant. If you want to go any deeper into Christian doctrine or history, I'm not the one to be talking to.

I sometimes upload picture files into my posts. Then, I often reuse those pictures by linking to their location in my Uploads section. That generally works fine on my computer, e.g:



I've noticed that when I look at the same post on my mobile phone, the picture isn't there, just the unlinked filename.

What's up with that? Any solutions?

Also, a question - does the picture show up on other people's mobile version of my posts?

They do. It isn't. — Vera Mont

Why don't you take issue with the strongest arguments against theisn made by principled atheists (like me or other disbelievers I can name if you can't find them), son, rather than just lazily picking the low-hanging fruit of 'contrarian rabble rousers' as representative strawmen to torch so smugly? — 180 Proof

I made a couple of simple statements back at the beginning of this thread in response to the OP and a post from @Wayfarer. Since then, I've just been responding to criticism of those statements. My posts were not any kind of comprehensive attack on atheist arguments. They were simple and focused. These "strongest arguments" you speak of have not been on the table.

...so they put on black cassocks and sail around the world to tell the heathen.... What, exactly? "My dear savages, I feel in my bones that Something ineffable exists, so I want you to renounce your own version of it and embrace mine. It's so much better, trust me!" — Vera Mont

I'm afraid only a theist can correct a mischaracterization of their ideas, particularly if it's unintentional. They can be rather odd. — praxis

I hate it when I'm the calm, understated poster in a thread. It means something is out of whack. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

Again, all I said was:

1) Atheists often put theist ideas in boxes, by which I meant they mischaracterize their beliefs based on their own biases. 2) Claiming that Christians believe the bible is infallible is a very common example of that process. 3) It is not true that Christians in general believe the bible is infallible. — T Clark

Note - I added "often" to soften the claim a bit.

Well, speaking only for myself, I take theism at face value and demonstrate that its sine qua non claims about g/G are not true (i.e. either incoherent or false). I suppose the relevant "bias" here is I reject untrue claims. — 180 Proof

[snarky]Yes, well 180P, you're such a good boy. [/snarky]