'Logical positivism' is associated with a book called Language Truth and Logic, published in 1936 by A J Ayer, and still on the curriculum in many philosophy departments. It's basic argument is that in order for any proposition to be meaningful, it must be able to be validated with reference to some actual state of affairs. Therefore most or all metaphysics is simply nonsensical, and ethical discourse is likewise the expression of feeling, not the statement of anything that could be true or false.

It's hard to see how that relates to 2001: A Space Odyssey which would have to be considered one of the most metaphysical movies ever made! — Wayfarer

I took the painstaking detail of making 2001 by Kubrick as an appeal to perfection and beauty, something strict, formalized, and true, which are many of the things logical positivism entail or value. I don't know, I just loved the movie from an aesthetic perspective.

I tend to value entertainment that is realistic, and the surrealism present in 2001 just made a huge appeal to me. Most entertainment nowadays is shit, sorry to say. That kinda leaves me with Discovery or National Geographic and some market analysis stations like Bloomberg. But, who cares, I don't even own a TV, haha.

Yeah, the black monolith is just the representation of a dark movie screen from what I have heard.

Well, it's sad in terms of mankind not exploring space and seeking a new home out in space is what I meant. Sorry, confusion there. It's inevitable, so better sooner than later?

Yup, that's Godel for you. I still struggle with the understanding of the implications of his theorems. As far as I know, it seems to me that his work has been ignored by the mainstream mathematicians excluding physicists like Tegmark.

The real problem with Godel's Incompleteness theorem is that Occam's razor can't be applied in such situations. So, in my understanding, it seems to be an insurmountable hard limit on the scope of our ability to make logical conclusions or create logical spaces/state spaces.

Not to hijack this thread; but, doesn't Godel's incompleteness theorem enhance or deny the existence of Platonic forms?

My question seems to be of the following,

How is Trump still president if what you say is true?

That seems very strange, but I understand that such an organization would be (rightfully so) an antithesis to democracy. It's just sad that you find out after the fact about what kind of person is sitting in the oval office.

The good news is that the market (SpaceX) has provided humankind with the means to move into space affordably and efficiently.

It's sad that 2001 never happened; but understandable. However, expecting people to move to Mars within my lifetime is something to be positive about.

That there just happens to be found a tucked away secret NASA capable of creating the most outstanding spaceships in a world where space flight is treated as a hoax might not be realistic, but the film has tried to get the physics correct. — ssu

What do you mean by this? I'm wondering as that fact stood out the most for me during the film. There's obviously some reason to do so.

I thought that was what the NSA and DHS were for.

Why do you find it surprising? — ssu

What I found surprising under the assumption that Trump cooperated with the Russians is in regards to vetting done by some agency in regards to the candidate for the office. Are candidates vetted and scrutinized before they can run for office as for any other governmental job of such importance?

De gustibus non est disputandum.

I mean, the movie opens with the theme of Also Sprach Zarathustra by Strauss.

Anyway, where have I gone wrong in my interpretation of logical positivism?

Maybe I missed the memo; but, does anyone else think 2001 is philosophical? I mean, Solaris was already mentioned; but, not 2001?

If you check any clip of 2001 in youtube, people are amazed in the comments section about how modern CGI for special effects pales over what Kubrick created.

I'm saying that I liked 2001 from a philosophical perspective of mankind embracing technology, science, and change.

It fits into my narrow logical positivist view on life.

Well, what I mean is that the people making 2001, Kubrick and Clarke (who closely worked together) in making 2001, believed that society embraced the progress produced by science and the desire to move out into space. Kubrick wasn't as positive and exuberant about space as Clarke was, and it's said that Clarke wept when he saw how silent and austere space was for the main characters in 2001.

For reasons all too obvious, that isn't true; but, one can dream?

I guess anything Kubrick, since he took surrealism to perfection.

2001 : A Space Odyssey, would be my first pick due to being all cozy with logical positivism, which simply became replaced with scientism.

I think his absence is a sign of protest. It started when Trump became Prez.

That's just how psychiatry works. You keep on trying different drugs due to the incredibly complex nature of how the etymology of depression works. Today, we tend to have established antidepressants that have been proven ad hoc by time since their approval.

There are a couple of ways one can go about finding out which neurons to target, hormones to monitor, BDNF levels to raise, NMDA receptor antagonists to treat major cases, etc.

All of the above few known methods for treating depression resulted from trial and error, along with examining the brains of post-mortem victims of major depression (typically suicide victims). Otherwise, most progress is from the doctor-patient relationship and clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies.

Moderately. I began reading Schopenhauer and becoming interested in Utilitarianism before I developed any symptoms. Stoicism also was studied intensively before anything started to make less sense than normal. Wittgenstein came later in my life when philosophy was becoming less clear and concise. I tend to lean on Cynicism though, due to negative symptoms, which are more devastating than the all too well known positive symptom aspect of the condition. I wonder sometimes if I didn't have this condition, would I be more of a Stoic.

My symptoms aren't hallucinations of any sort (thank God), rather excessive paranoia about my surroundings. I tend to think I'm hyper-vigilant, but that's not the same as paranoia which I experience daily.

Yes, and it was a while ago when diagnosed. I spend time here to keep my sanity in check.

Other than that it's a condition one has to accept and live with or in the worst case scenario never come to terms with it and... well I think you get the idea. Unmedicated schizophrenics are pretty bad cases and non-compliant schizophrenics are worse...

There's a great movie that gives you a direct experience about how the condition can become manifest. 'God knows where I am' is the movie.

So, what I mean to say is that the epistemological quantifier of mental illnesses is derived from the results one obtains from the drug treatment for the condition. It's not an exact science; but, if someone complains about being sad all the time, then putting them on SSRI's or other drugs that treat depression is what one has to do to become less depressed. If the drug works, then we have knowledge that either the drug was effective for the condition described or the placebo effect had an equal but not greater effect.

Tell me about it. Medication helps though!

In regards to the topic, I think everyone would agree that having a bipolar or schizophrenic or depressed, on medication for those conditions rather than not.

That would be their purpose, to treat those conditions*.

*I purposely refuse to use the term disorder.

Would anyone care to elucidate how the placebo effect can mimic the efficacy of drugs tested in clinical trials?

If you read the research papers, there's plenty of evidence that the placebo effect has quite a significant impact on general wellbeing scores (PANSS, MADRS, etc.)

As someone with a CBT background, you should immediately recognize that you're professing a very binary or black and white type of thinking here, where one must always be exactly at the norm to feel sane.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Says the psychiatrist to the psychologist and vice versa.

One always has to address the placebo effect in this context.

Well, the goose seems to be cooked. Wonder how it gets served by the FBI or other intelligence agencies.

Man, I really hope Trump gets served hard. When I was watching him still campaign, I told my mom that they'd catch him on his prostitute hobby doing cocaine in some hotel in Miami. The above, provided by ssu, makes that look like peanuts.

So, you're on the side that thinks Trump and Russia are related somehow?

What I find surprising is that these ties didn't come out during a vetting process of potential candidates for the office?

Yeah; but, let us not be naive and assume the money came with no strings attached, from the Russian oligarchy.

Well, people aren't machines that can be hacked into, although they're prone to subversion tactics such as defaming mud-slinging, etc. (?)

related to the, in my mind, conspiratorial and factually bankrupt narrative that Russia "influenced" the election (in the genuine sense of tampering with actual votes cast). — Thorongil

The Russians would have realized early on that tampering with actual votes will lead to little effect. I think their goal of subversion of the masses through many channels of the media through leaking e-mails and such seemingly incriminating evidence is what would have been done.

If mundane means a lighter workload, less stress, and general contentment, then it might turn out to be the better option. Low aspirations can be a blessing in disguise. Sometimes I think about what I could have gone for in terms of a career: lawyer, doctor, scientist... and I feel a little regretful. But then I think about all of the hard work, time, money, effort, stress, and all the rest, that that would have required... and that tends to do the trick. (Although, you already know what I think, because we've had this conversation before).

Each to their own. I'd much rather work in retail than be a truck driver, which I think I'd soon find unbearable. — Sapientia

Well, there is an ounce of regret always present when I think about my current situation. Hard not to feel some regret if you are at least motivated in some regards to becoming something. I mean, if you didn't feel regret, then I think you fall into the category of 'moocher' or 'can work but doesn't want to' type. Yeah, I do feel butthurt; but, so is life.

If it makes anyone feel better, I'm trying to go on disability, a process that could take up to a year.

Either that or go back to college and accrue more debt for a degree that won't land me any awesome job positions. I'm in the process of seeking a job with IHSS, which isn't that bad, as a stopgap measure to get on disability.

Nowadays, I tend to sleep upwards of 12+ hours a day and enjoy my life as it unfolds in my dreams.

I have considered just piling up more debt and see what happens then; but, a BA in Econ won't get me anywhere fast. And, getting up to a Masters isn't that great either. I'd be in my 30's by the time I finish my masters and still living with my mom. Not a bad life, just really mundane.

I try not to complain.

There is no mathematical substitute for philosophy.
Kripke, 1976, Logic

There is no "my" world. There is the world and the limits of my language mean the limits of me being able to communicate my knowledge and understanding of the world. I can still experience the world without language. The world is still there even if I never learned a language. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, so that's the tinge of solipsism in the Tractatus. It's no big deal if one acknowledges that the world represents logical space, with every person being some point on the origin, perceiving reality relativistically. Wittgenstein doesn't go into detail; but, I assume he would say that some external world exists apart from the one perceived by an observer.

"But now it may come to look as if there were something like a final analysis of our forms of language, and so a single completely resolved form of every expression. It is as if our usual forms of expression were, essentially, unanalysed; as if there were something hidden in them that had to be brought to light. When this is done the expression is completely clarified and our problem solved.

"It can also be put like this: we eliminate misunderstandings by making our expressions more exact; but now it may look as if we were moving towards a particular state, a state of complete exactness; and as if this were the real goal the of our investigations (PI, para. 91)." — Sam26

Is it me or does this paragraph of the Investigations sound very Buddhist or Eastern?

I put the italicized portion of emphasis.

Sam, what are your thoughts about Wittgenstein's mention of "logical space" in the Tractatus? What does it mean?

I'd like to thank Hanover for being the minority here and still making everyone else feel like the minority.

There are different methods of extracting the weapons grade plutonium from the breeder fuel. I think the most modern method is to use lasers as in some resonance exciting of gases to separate isotopes at certain frequencies. This is ultramodern and efficient as well as very dangerous due to ease of concealment. I don't think you can use centrifuges without giving away your hiding spot due to extremely sensitive satellite radioactive detectors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_separation