"golden rule" for wisdom — Yohan

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" Stephen J. Gould.

If you read the thread, you'll find that several people gave really thought provoking answers to the question. — frank

This is just a punt on your part. A baloney response because you have nothing relevant to say. I went back and reread the posts in this thread. There is nothing that deals with the state of health care in China and how it relates to health care in the US. Or did I miss it?

Can we say the brain is an analogue computer being able to simulate all physical processes in thd world, even a lightning flash? — Prishon

I certainly am not an expert on this, but it is my understanding that an analog computer works by modelling a specific process using an analogous process, e.g. the flow of water modelled using the flow of electricity. I don't think a single analog set-up is capable of doing multiple sets of calculations the way a digital computer can using software. Analog computers are much more limited than digital ones are.

Someone please correct the errors in my understanding.

Not true. They would be if they stayed home in the country. They have moved en masse to the cities and lost benefits in the process. — frank

I don't get it. What's your point?

China doesn't have universal healthcare. They're a hell of a lot bigger than we are. — frank

Perhaps China is not included among the "developed world." Anyway, the web says that 95% of Chinese are covered by subsidized healthcare.

There are and have been civilized states that didn't provide healthcare. — frank

According to the web, the United States is still the only country in the developed world without a system of universal healthcare.

Remember that healthcare as we know it emerged in the 20th Century, mostly after WW2. — frank

For what it's worth, it is my understanding that President Truman proposed universal health care in the US in the early 1950s. Richard Nixon also supported a system similar to Obamacare back in the early 1970s.

The only curiosity here is, why can't 'mercans see this? What went astray in 'mercan culture? — Banno

Free health care and the metric system - it's cominism I tell you! Cominism!

I cant make the vaccinated ill... — Prishon

Apparently the vaccinated can be infected in some cases, but that's not the main problem. Yes, you can infect the unvaccinated. You can also infect those for whom the vaccine hasn't worked, like my brother who had a kidney transplant and is immunosuppressed.

If say 40% of all people (I would be one of them) would refuse to take the Covid19 vaccine, how would society or politics react. — Prishon

All 50 states require that children take the measles vaccine before they fan go to school. Why should this be any different? Employers, especially in health care and other critical jobs, should require employees to be vaccinated before they come to work. If they don't, they should be liable for damages for employees and others who are infected.

If you don't want to be inoculated, I'm ok with that. Just stay in your room with the door closed.

For what it's worth, at least 40% of all people in all but seven states have been fully vaccinated.

What are the objections against the view that a lot of different realities can co-exist? Especially in the science driven global culture of today there seems to be a lot of resistence. That is at least what I experience. — Prishon

Generally, it is the responsibility of the person who starts a discussion to provide their own thoughts in the opening post. It's just common courtesy.

My thoughts - If you read many of my posts, this is a refrain you will hear over and over. There is only one world. Just look around. These "different realities" you refer to are just different ways of looking at that world. They are metaphysical systems. Metaphysical systems are not right or wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I have my own particular ways of looking at things. They are like tools. When I have to deal with something, I can rummage around in my tool box and pull out the one that will work best.

Welcome to the forum.

It looks like various societies through history have left some members without basic needs per principle. Why would this be wrong? — frank

It doesn't matter what other people have done. We should do what we think is right, based on our values. There are people in our society who don't agree with me. What we actually get will have to be a compromise between their goals and ours. That's the best we'll be able to do. As Aristotle, or was it Pauly Shore, wrote - Good enough is good enough.

How about small numbers without basic needs? — frank

Providing for everyone is the goal, but it'll never get met. People always fall through the cracks. So, keep trying.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

A society can't be considered a good one if large numbers of its members are without basic needs, including healthcare. It doesn't really matter to me how those needs are supplied. One thing we know - globalization and corporatism won't do it. So - it doesn't have to be government, but if no other institution provides it, the government should.

Also - thanks for keeping the thread alive. It's my favorite.

They way this artist represents urbanism is so accurate. — javi2541997

I like it too. When you said it was beautiful, I wasn't sure I agreed. I wouldn't call it a beautiful view, but it does give you a visceral feel for how cities become cities.

When I fly over cities like this, I think to myself - "How many people down there are eating oysters. How can there possibly be enough oysters? How can they possibly get all the oysters to everyone who wants them." It gives a feel for the weight, the density, that civilization brings to the world.

I find it hard to believe the web has even close to all the answers. — Benj96

I didn't say it has all the answers. I said it has answers to almost all the questions I have.

Click on my icon. — jgill

I see you are an expert in complex dynamical systems. The sense in which I was using "complex systems" was more mundane than that. Even without taking chaos into consideration, when you get beyond a very simple system, assigning cause may be impossible.

Are you happy about his New Deal and Infrastructure bill? — Shawn

Has it passed the House yet? I'll believe it when I see it signed. Yes, it's a good thing, but it won't solve the problem.

Apply the mediocrity principle to 'human history': our era is no more or less mediocre than other era. — 180 Proof

Are you saying that even our mediocrity is mediocre?

I explicitly or implicitly wanted someone from an older generation to expound on that. — Shawn

I was born in 1951. I think the most important differences between my life and those of younger people is that working people are more vulnerable than they once were. Globalization, corporatization, stagnation of standard of living, weakness of labor unions, failure of the Democratic party to protect its constituents.

I am led to believe that millennials and even baby boomers are living a mediocre life. — Shawn

Where did I criticize? I made no value judgements on my thoughts about, (if you reeallly think about it you can even say I'm speaking about myself) other people. — Shawn

"Mediocre" means "not very good."

If any of this holds true, thus, is modern life becoming more mediocre? — Shawn

Criticizing other people's lives is, and has always been, a popular pastime.

Brother James did not particularly push anyone's buttons. He just posted well below standard with cluttered, rapid fire, vague, self-aggrandizing statements that he was likely cutting and pasting from some larger work he's put together over the years. He was selling some theory he arrived at and he was more interested in showing it off than debating it. — Hanover

As I noted in my post, 1B James was not here to philosophize, but to preach. He was spreading the word with a fire hose. That's a good reason to ban him. As I also noted, his ideas are no more unsupportable or unsupported than many other posters here.

And I also don't think this thread is a ridicule thread. — Hanover

@The Opposite's post was unnecessarily disrespectful to @Hope. The only reason I responded was because he made his point in a response to one of my posts. I didn't like that. More generally, people often do use this thread as a way to give a final slap in the face to someone they don't like as they are escorted from the establishment.

I vote hope's banning be reconsidered, and if on reconsideration acceptable, invited to rejoin. — tim wood

When you become a moderator, you take an oath never to admit you're wrong. I know that's true because @Hanover told me.

I think I just have a higher tolerance for strange people with strange views. I get the clutter thing, but he did attempt to explain himself when you challenged him on his weirdness. — Noble Dust

Generally, you get banned if you push a particular moderator's buttons. I could see how he would.

Why is this a particular issue for you? Are you Roma? I hope that's not too personal.

Hypothetically speaking supposing there was an omniscient being - doesn’t have to be (a) god necessarily maybe a hyper intelligent AI or a genie or whatever but you could ask it one question - anything at all, what would it be? — Benj96

What's the capital of Malawi? Seriously, almost all the questions I have I can get answers for off the web. Ok, ok - What will be this weeks PowerBall number?

English: it comes from the word "gyp" which means scam. — javi2541997

I thought it was the other way around - that the word "gyp" came from "gypsy."

what exactly is the benefit to the forum of banning someone like this person? — Noble Dust

Was there something in particular you liked about 1 Brother James, or are you commenting just on basic principles? Not disagreeing. Just curious.

It seems you adopt a view of pragmatism where if the principle does not help us in everyday life then it is meaningless? I don't think this answers the question on whether it is rational to accept or deny the metaphysical truth of the principle. — Ghost Light

I think it's fair to call many of my philosophical ideas pragmatic.

As I've said many times before, people generally choose their metaphysical systems. The standard I apply is usefulness rather than truth. In my, and some other's, views metaphysical principles are not true or false.

I may be perfectly rational to either accept or deny the metaphysical value of the idea of causation.

Not having to clutter the forum with nonsense posts. — StreetlightX

As I'm sure most people agree, it was clear from the start that 1 Brother James was not long for the forum. His ideas were no more "nonsense" than many others here. We have a lot of anti-science and pseudo-science posters. Explanations of how consciousness is the result of quantum entanglement between neurons and waves emanating from the planet Kuzbain abound here. There is some controversy as to whether the correct spelling might be "Koozebane."

What bothered me most about 1B James was the fact that he didn't come here to engage in discussions with us. He was just using the forum as a loud speaker to blast out his ideas without explanation or analysis. He was a preacher, not a philosopher.

It bothers me when members ridicule people who have been banned, which is a common blood sport here on the Bannings thread. I'm sure it's humiliating for them. Most of them are sincere. Most, but not all, don't belong here

Aren't the natural sciences largely engaged in trying to identify causal relationships? A trite example suddenly comes to mind, the 1960's television scientist, Julius Sumner Miller. His show was called 'Why is it so?' and typically used simple experiments to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. Pray tell, how was that show metaphysical? — Wayfarer

As I noted, the idea of causation may be applicable in some very simple systems. That doesn't necessarily mean it is useful in more complex cases or necessary in any situation. My thoughts here are works in progress.

the furniture of basic arithmetic, — Wayfarer

I like this metaphor.

So I think there's a valid disfinction between the compounded or made or phenomenal, and the uncompounded or unmade (which is the domain of necessary truths). I think that says something important which is nowadays mostly disputed or denied. — Wayfarer

I am focusing my thinking primarily on physical causes, so I haven't really thought through the kinds of issues you are discussing here.

The metaphysical principle would still hold that if there is a state of this system that exists and has not existed forever (i.e. began to exist) then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a cause for why the state began to exist as it does. — Ghost Light

Item 7 on the T Clark list of philosophical principles - If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. I have no problem with your statement, but, since it has no practical use, it doesn't really mean anything. Who cares if something is caused or not if I can't trace the chain of causation?

It seems less reasonable to say that the state of the system could become that way with no cause. — Ghost Light

I don't see it that way.

The principle could be true metaphysically even though it will not help us to understand the future system behaviour. — Ghost Light

As I said, In my view, a metaphysical principle that has no real world use is meaningless.

Even here I would reject that it would not help us do this. If we accept that whatever begins to exist has a cause, then it gives us a good reason to understand that things in systems do what they do for a reason and when new things occur and states begin to exist, there will be a cause for them. It will help us to understand the causal nexus of the system better. — Ghost Light

What is a "causal nexus?"

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. — Ghost Light

I have not fully convinced myself that the idea of cause is useless yet. I'm trying out these ideas to see what I really believe. So, these are just my thoughts too.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence)...it is irrational to deny this principle. — Ghost Light

I've heard this claim many times in many contexts, but it doesn't make sense to me. I can understand a claim that it is wrong to deny causation, but not why it would be considered irrational.

The question I have is, (1) Can this causal principle be rationally denied? and (2) What would the benefits/costs be of rejecting this principle? — Ghost Light

Response to Question 1 - I'm not sure of this argument, but I'm going to try it out. Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can be really useful in some situations, especially simple physical ones like the typical cliche example of billiard balls. The idea of causation may be important when I am trying to predict the future behavior of a relatively simple system based on existing conditions. Something like causation may also be important in situations where we need to identify human responsibility for an action. On the other hand, in systems with many components and many inputs and outputs, it is probably not useful to try to identify specific causes for specific states of the system.

Response to Question 2 - In complex systems, assuming that all system behaviors require causes will probably not help understand future system behavior. It will probably lead to unrealistically simplistic approaches.

And your point is well-taken. It has taken me 49+years to acquire what little comprehension I do have of my own processing. And my work with people regarding the operations of the Invisible MIND "Within" them over some 40 years as a Gestalt Psychotherapist also altered how I view the multiple dimensions of Man. — 1 Brother James

So, you acknowledge my point is well-taken, but don't plan to change your approach. Is that correct?

What I find interesting about philosophy is that it does not study how the MIND feeds Delusional Thinking to the Left-Hemisphere of the brain, in the form of words and thoughts, which the brain then thinks is its own thinking. — 1 Brother James

You clearly have a well-developed and well-thought-out understanding of reality and mind. It is also very idiosyncratic. As far as I can see, so far all you've done is to send out blasts of your unfamiliar ideas expressed in unfamiliar language without trying to really connect with the ideas of those of us here on the forum. It's as if you expect us to drop what we believe and take up your way of seeing things just based on your enthusiasm and certainty. It's pretty condescending.

Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence

If you want to start a discussion, you should contribute more of your own thinking before you ask us for ours.

Telos = the potential end toward which a given moves; e.g., a goal (that which one wants to accomplish)
Telosis = the movement of a given toward a potential end; e.g., a striving (what one does to so accomplish)
Endstate = the actual end; e.g., the outcome of the striving toward a goal — javra

I don't see how these are significantly different than my formulation.

If one's telos happens to be the taking to flight by the flapping of hands, one will start flapping ones hands as the telosis. — javra

I'm not sure this is relevant, but I'd think the first step would be to research the history of flight, aerodynamics, anatomy, and other relevant technical information. Then maybe I'd do some calculations about wing/arm surface, muscle strength, drag on my body, and other factors. Then, when my calculations showed I wouldn't be able to fly that way, maybe I'd do some research on eastern religions that are reported to teach us to levitate.

Causation, as typically understood, does not occur strictly in the present. — javra

Everything occurs strictly in the present. Our memories of the past and thoughts about the future take place in the present. Ok, ok, I'm being tediously pedantic.

Or maybe I should ask, how do you define causation? — javra

Some definitions from the web:

[1] The act of making something (the effect) happen
[2] The relationship of cause and effect between one event or action and the result
[3] The act or agency which produces an effect
[4] From Bertrand Russell - "Cause and effect . . . are correlative terms denoting any two distinguishable things, phases, or aspects of reality, which are so related to each other that whenever the first ceases to exist the second comes into existence immediately after, and whenever the second comes into existence the first has ceased to exist immediately before."
[5] More from BR - "Causality - The necessary connection of events in the timeseries"
[6] More from BR - "Cause - Whatever may be included in the thought or perception of a process as taking place in consequence of another Process. ."

Boy. That's not much help. First off, I want to stay away from old Aristotle's four types of causation, at least for the purposes of this post. Too complicated. I think the only helpful use of the word involves very simple systems, e.g. the cliche billiard balls. Hey, how about this. Physical causation is the transmission of energy from one thing to another. I like that. The moving cue ball strikes the three ball. Some of the kinetic energy of the cue ball is transmitted to the three ball, which then moves. Even non-physical causation has to eventually lead to physical causation.

I've been thinking for a while that causation is not a very useful concept. That is not a new thought. Bertrand Russell wrote about it extensively. Maybe I'll start a new thread.

Whatever you do, I hope you'll share some of your translations here.

No, I haven't translated Tao Te Ching. But if I feel couraged again to share some of the related works I tend to find more interest in starting with I Ching. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

In case you haven't found it, here's a website with many translations of the Tao Te Ching along with some other documents:

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

I've gotten started on the I Ching a couple of times, but never got very far. The Tao Te Ching, on the other hand, grabbed me and shook me when I first read it. I find the poetic format much more compelling than the stories in the Zhuangzi. I think that's because I tend to be very intellectual, verbal. I'm an engineer and the Tao has always felt like engineering mysticism to me.

Ray Kurzweil was the protagonist — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Kurzweil predicts that the "technological singularity" will arrive in 2045 and we will grovel on our knees before our machine overlords.

our fear for death is inevitable and acceptance is lying to ourselves. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Yes, well. I think this says a lot more about Kurzweil than it does about me or you or anyone else. Last time I looked, he was trying to keep himself alive until he can upload his mind into a computer and live forever.