Yeah, sure. It has plenty of problems. I don't need to agree with an author in many aspects for me to like the book and think it's good.

He is one author, Pinker too I believe, that think that entropy explains almost everything. I think that's wrong, but since the topic here is entropy I think it's worth pointing out.

At least he takes philosophy quite seriously, unlike Krauss or Tyson. Though more than Aristotle, he seems to me to be a Wittgenstinian of sorts. Plus, covering all the sciences in one book to attempt a unifying theme is commendable.

If you are unjustly kicking a man when he is down, and then you quit kicking for whatever reason (forced to quit or voluntarily quit), you simply cannot expect the man to get up, brush himself off and say "Why thank kind Sir, for stopping that brutal kicking!"

If he gets the opportunity, he's going to F you up. Especially if he perceives you resisted the change. — James Riley

:ok:

However, I will ask to what extent does the idea of an outsider, as a person who sees differently, make sense to you? Also, how might we think about peak experiences, and their value? Do you have any thoughts on the the idea of transforming consciousness? — Jack Cummins

Strictly speaking we all see uniquely, the way the world appears to each of us. I would be surprised if someone saw exactly how I saw so it makes total sense to think of people who experience the world very differently, for example:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-woman-whose-eyes-have-a-whole-new-type-of-colour-receptor

Not to mention psychedelic experiences, which can be very powerful. But I'd caution taking powerful experiences as means for establishing truth claims of any kind, except the fact that the mind, consciousness, is amazing. But no metaphysical claims can be made from such experiences, I think.

Transforming consciousness can be achieved in many ways, meditation, exercise, music, reading, etc., etc.

It's just that something's being the consensus view is insufficient to show that that something is wrong. SO recognising that something is the consensus view is not all that useful. — Banno

You might be interested in taking a look at John Hand's Cosmosapiens. He discuses physics, and well every other major science in very, very interesting ways, often always going against the mainstream, but it a quite respectable manner and evidence heavy manner. The best science book I've ever read.

But I'm missing many... :wink:

how can I put this, the burden of responsibilities to achieve a non discriminatory culture are not evenly distributed by an hysterically dictatorial victim-oppressor, identity politics paradigm. It divides people by identity, and creates antagonisms between them to exploit for political advantage. — counterpunch

Again is Black Lives Matter or #MeToo part of being woke? If it is not, then by definition being woke is extreme and will lead to the divisions you describe. If these movements are part of being woke, then not all of it is extreme, only a small and loud section of (mostly) college students.

The very fact that you seek to wash your hands of "more extreme elements" even after I've shown them taking hold in the public sector, in education and the NHS, demonstrates the problem. — counterpunch

And I said, there are already books being written about the problem, you're seeing pushback in culture too. Pinker, Dawkins, etc. are involved in these things. So are many other intellectuals, podcasters of all stripes, etc.

But of course big corporations and governments are going to side with this type of thinking. It costs them nothing and makes them look good.

But it's a very minor problem compared to, say, how Julian Assange is being treated. If we really cared about free speech, that might be more important than some misguided students.

As with almost any concept we have, we can try to analyze them in many different ways. If you are interested in light from a theoretical perspective, that is, how light works mind-independently, then physics tells you something about it. You can learn about colours or the speed of light, for example.

If you are interested in other aspects of light and darkness, you can read literature, poetry, etc. But any concept we use is extremely rich, complex and multifaceted.

I suppose that one thing that could be said about light is that we're very much visual creatures. We learn most by looking at the world, so in this sense we associate light with many profound qualities.

I think that in the end, you're stuck with finding something about these concepts that fulfill your own questions about them.

I'm try to be simple minded about things, so the one quote that I can share about this topic, would be this:

"It's always night or we wouldn't need light." - Thelonious Monk

What he means by this, is up to you. But he seems to me to be right. :)

I do not accept that. — counterpunch

Then you associate all aspects of "woke culture" with the most extreme elements. Under than definition, all of it is extreme.

Further, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSMV-5; a mental condition the mainstream woke inculcate in primary school aged children! — counterpunch

This is now a changing aspect of society. Being gay used to be considered a disease too. The British government killed Turing, essentially, for being gay. These views are now considered retrograde, with good reason.

But I do agree that a child is likely too young to know the difference in most cases.

Pandering to political correctness to avoid accusations of racism, sexism or whatever, gives mainstream space to extremists. Or do you endorse all this in the name of woke-ism? — counterpunch

When did I say I endorsed this? I explicitly called this:

extreme woke stuff, like pointing out 50 genders... — Manuel

Yeah. Taken to these levels it is extreme. But most people don't take this stuff seriously at all.

Ask anybody what they think of "sapiosexuals" or of "xim" and "xer", they'll think you're talking about Scientology or something. And there's already pushback on this, you already see it. I don't think it's going to doom our society or destroy culture.

There are much more serious threats than this by far.

Those are the more extreme aspects of it, sure. But is, for example, #MeToo or BLM an aspect that falls under the broad brush "woke culture"? Or in using the term "woke", we refer only to those people who do think that everything is sexist and racist?

Because if it's the latter, then it's true by definition that woke culture is mostly harmful.

If it isn't, then we need to separate the sensible from the irrational. Paying too much attention to the more extreme elements seems to me like adding fuel to the fire.

A lot of the more extreme woke stuff, like pointing out 50 genders or thinking that men are higher than women on average is a sexist comment, seems to me to be a distraction from real problems. If freedom of speech is a problem, then why not attempt to persuade the US to drop charges on Assange, who is being tortured?

But, the rest of the critique against other aspects of "woke culture", is just resistance to change. In this case, positive changes to society concerning racism, sexism and other nasty aspects of human life.

The line gets blurry here, because of course cosmology is seeking knowledge about ultimate reality. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

By way of looking for laws of natures, yes.

I think the ontology and metaphysics do not look for laws in this sense, I'd wager they are based on experience as it pertains to our common understanding of the world.

But that's how I find it useful. If you don't find these distinctions useful, then that's what matters for you.

The point about testimonies is that they can be tested against evidence. — Wayfarer

The kind of evidence they provide is less solid than evidence found in other branches of science. Personal accounts are quite less reliable that direct observation.

Doesn't mean it's not evidence, it can be. It's just more problematic.

I think too many labels just lead to unclarity and confusion, when it is ultimately the same thing that we are curious about. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Well, maybe there can be confusion with ontology and metaphysics. So when Quine asks "What is there?", he is asking a question about ontology as he says, the answer he gives "Everything." applies both to ontology and metaphysics.

Cosmology shouldn't be confused with the others. It seeks empirical answers with a theoretical account that can explain phenomena. Metaphysics and ontology don't really have theories in this sense.

Well one route to go would be many worlds. Perhaps in some other world there are copies of us. We wouldn't be able to interact in any manner.

Perhaps as energy, we might be lucky enough to interact with other persons in some obscure manner. It's not necessarily woo, nor is life after death in some wonderful realm, but the evidence is not terribly convincing.

Some people say they remember previous lives, but what about those who don't. Is it that they have not reincarnated or is it a matter of lack of memory? Or maybe some people are able to, and others not.

I may be repeating myself of this point but, as far as I can tell when I apply any possible word or concept to the state prior to my birth such as "joy", "grief", "length (of time)", "good", "bad", etc., I find that none apply at all. That's as much evidence, if it can be called that, that I can get for the transcendent. Why would after death be any different: before birth nothing applies, after death nothing applies: the state is the same.

We come back to testimonies. But is it this world in which such memories apply or what? Even putting science aside, the reasons why such a thing could occur doesn't make much sense to me. Then again, at bottom, nothing does.

Admirably put.

it is an alternative which he should have been prepared to take into consideration from the beginning as a possibility. — Quine - On a so-called paradox

Yes, this much is clear. His attitude of confidence should not have arisen, irrespective of the judges pronouncement.

Oh logic! How I wish I could follow as I do reading words. :lol:

that I shall be hanged tomorrow noon and do not know it now. — Quine - On a so-called paradox

OK.

But if the judge says you will be killed tomorrow, then how can he not know he's going to get killed, the judge said so now.

Logic aside, the only way out would be to add in the extra possibility that the executioner couldn't show up tomorrow for some strange reason, maybe an accident or he gets very sick or something like that.

Cosmology is the study of the origins of the universe, it's tied to astronomy.

Ontology, a branch of metaphysics, is the field of philosophy that discusses what kinds of being exist in the world.

Metaphysics is the field of philosophy that seeks to elucidate most general features of reality.

Cosmology has empirical accounts for some of the phenomenon observed and could be labeled as a science, though this can be debated to some extent.

Ontology is a mixture of observed phenomena and an priori classification and is subject to many different interpretations, often individual based.

Metaphysics is mostly a-priori. Whether the world is ideal, material, neutral or anything else, isn't really clarified by what we see in the world. Other aspects such as concept of the self, or free will and the like, may have some empirical components, but these are very slight compared with the innate concepts associated with these ideas.

So yes, there are important differences here.

I’m not sure how individualism can harm other people because much of individualism is concerned with the protection of individual rights. — NOS4A2

The problem arises when one individual gains too much power over another. It can happen in politics, business or societal affairs. When there is too much asymmetry in relationships, individualism becomes a problem for those individualists who are at mercy of others in terms of paychecks, laws, etc.

No individualist (as far as I know) denied the social aspects of life, family or community. — NOS4A2

Sure. I just wanted to point out that this obvious fact should be kept in mind. How much of a free individual is a person in relation to family? This wildly varies from case to case.

But the upshot was this: Many folks are raised with a sense of "rights" where as he was raised with a sense of "obligations." — James Riley

This is a big problem. If some people don't share these intuitions, because they don't feel them, then what do we do?

Physics is very hard. Society is impossible.

Many thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. I enjoy certain paradoxes a lot too, this one caught my attention, I'm not sure why. I guess it has to do with the fact that it is presented quite well.

Yes, this seems to be the main theme, the word "surprise." After all the judge could have told the prisoner "You'll be hanged next week, but you won't know which day." He could do the same thought experiment and conclude that he can't be killed any day, but he would still be killed and then the puzzle is less interesting.

Doing very bad logic, suppose we only had a one day week and a two day weekend. In this case, he'd conclude he cannot be killed on the weekday, because he'd know for certain that this was the day he would be killed and he could not be surprised. Or so he thinks. But he would still be surprised when they come to get him.

It looks like a "this is liar" type situation.

Interesting... :chin:

In mainstream debate the alternative given is "communism" as in the USSR.

But it's a good question, what such an alternative could be like. Voluntary cooperation? Total control by corporations? Or would it be a Mad Max-like scenario?

It's an awful thought to think that the alternative could be much worse than what we have now, what with all the Earth heating up, threats of nuclear war, severe inequality, etc.

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

I suppose it's not wrong per se. It only becomes a problem if your individualism is such that it can harm other people. How we define harm is obviously very much debatable.

I can only say that we aren't born out of holes in the ground, alone. We are born belonging to a family, a city a country, etc. The closer the relationship between people, the closer the bond. So individualists at least have to contend with dealing with the social unit of family. Beyond that, things get very murky very quickly.

As you have indicated, H2O and water are very different concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

But I would more so say that when Dennett says “consciousness ain’t real” he is denying the “phenomenal” bit, not the “consciousness” bit. He is basically denying a dualistic approach. Consciousness is real and all, but no more than a physical process. The “feeling of red” IS a specific neurological state, and no more than that. It’s not something “produced by” a certain neurological state no it IS the neurological state.

That’s what he seems to be saying to me at least. — khaled

Despite generally being able to come up with wonderful examples, it's not always too clear what he's saying, at least to me. What you interpret him to say may be correct.

He thinks he's getting rid of dualism. The thing about being no more than a physical process is a bit confusing. What's "more" than a physical process? Everything is physical or the stuff of nature.

But yeah, his thought arouses a lot of debate.

It's a good question to consider if "good science" can lead to bad or misleading thinking. :chin:

But that's for another thread.

So let's just say he makes it to Thursday night, he's pretty confident he can't be killed Friday, because he would know about it.

But actually he can be killed on Friday, so he would be surprised if by Friday at noon, they come to get him. So no matter what, he's going to be surprised … (?)

I mean sure. But it would be however a bit annoying to have many random laypeople saying "this is wrong", when the person in question has years of experience on a single topic.

Nevertheless, your point is valid and I agree with the layman explanation standard. Another issue altogether is if people use professional credentials or knowledge in a field as evidence for something which is crazy.

I have in mind Dennett and his denying phenomenal consciousness. He knows brain sciences better than me, I'm sure. But his conclusions aren't plausible.

I can only quote from physicists or scientists who I think are reliable. And when such work is promulgated through popular works - which is perfectly fine it's how I learn about them - there is going to be a good bit simplification and I have to take a lot of it on trust, since I can't do the equations.

Having said that, I tend to like scientific literature that is a bit contrarian in the sense of looking for loopholes in popular accounts, because I think this is how I think science tends to progress.

Funnily enough, those who make the craziest claims about physics can be philosophers like Rosenberg. But saying that physics is trivial or easy, is a mistake.

It just so happens that the rest of reality is incredibly hard.

Upon reconsideration: Friday can be eliminated. Thursday would be a surprise only if he lived past Wednesday. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday would all be a surprise. — Fooloso4

Why would Monday be a surprise? He can only consider any other day after if he lives through Monday. He starts with Friday and goes backward, but the week hasn't begun.

How can he maneuver Monday? If the week begins and he gets killed Monday, he might not be surprised and the judge would be wrong.

Unless I'm missing something, which is very likely.

Any explanations? — Banno

The tradition I'm sympathetic with Russell, Chomsky, Strawson, etc. Say that physics is simple in the following sense: the structures they study are simple, what's one particle compared to a biological organism which is composed of billions of particles are have properties not found in particles in isolation.

But, it's certainly true that the mathematics, the theories, the experiments and all the false leads are fiendishly difficult. So anyone who says it's easy, is either a genius mathematician, or doesn't know physics well. That's my initial impression.

It's a good paradox. I'm terrible at solving these sorts of things. — RogueAI

Goodness gracious I'm not the only one!

I'm horrified of a logician coming here and saying, "pss, that's easy: take X to be the function of the prisoners state, then 5/12 for the possible hours he could be killed and divide by the variable y/h and you'll see!"

It is. That the judge's words constrain reality is an unwarranted assumption. The judge could have said anything, true or false, sensical or not. Never believe a judge! — unenlightened

But the prediction was true. If he were not surprised the day he was going to be killed or if he knew the day, then she would be wrong.

But in general, I'll grant you the not trusting a judge thing. :wink:

If you look at it in a Bayesian sense, then the probability of getting hanged on any particular day is mildly surprising, since absent any other information it's a 1/7 chance. — RogueAI

Sure. Except that in this case, we are led to believe weekends don't count. So it would be a 1/5 chance.

So the problem starts out on Monday. He can only rule out every other day if he is not killed by noon on any specific day.

I wonder if there would be a situation in which he would not be surprised.

He can rule out Tuesday if he isn't killed by Monday night, because he would be expecting it.

If he expects to be killed on any given day, he won't be surprised.

....Or I think. I'm stretching my logic here. :sweat:

Indeed, as the prisoner reasons, the prediction must turn out to be false because it is a contradictory speech act. Unfortunately, in this case his logic rescues the judge from her contradiction, because he concludes that the execution cannot take place, rather than that the judge is irrational. — unenlightened

Interesting perspective of focusing mostly on the judge. Yet, given what happens in the paradox, he is surprised and gets killed.

So let me play devil's advocate here and ask: what's wrong with the prisoners reasoning specifically? Since the paradox turns out to be true, his reasoning must be faulty or so it appears to me.

Solution #2 — T Clark

Solution #3 — T Clark

:rofl:

That's pretty good I must say.

I'd only add one obscene word after "surprise". :wink:

Solution #1 - Given that he is confident he won't be hanged, he'll be surprised whichever day he actually is. — T Clark

What you point out here is actually an interesting component. He'd be surprised no matter what. Unless he doesn't killed next week.

Sure. Any human language is infinite. One can write an infinite number of sentences in any language and never run out of things to say.

One can write an infinite number of sentences and never run out of things to say at all.

I said that one can write an infinite number of sentences and never run out of things to say at all.

Etc.

Yeah, I never said that math doesn't use the concept of infinite.

Infinity can be applied in different domains. English is infinite, but English isn't French. Math is infinite, but math doesn't contain the letters of the alphabet.

On the scale of the universe, it's hard to disentangle the infinite from temporality. For instance, if the universe were infinite, then how is it that we arose as a species? It would take an infinite number of years to get to this point, yet here we are.

Then again, who knows.

Evil is a high bar. Some people surely reach that. Intention is important as others have mentioned. Perhaps something like "causally cruel" would be a more fair description. Then again, modern neoliberal society has induced people to believe that "this is just the way the world is", nothing can be done to change things.

But one could say with more confidence that our current market society is, at best, quite pathological what with endless consumption, pointless competition and survival of the fittest.

It's a hard problem.

Fuck yes! Can't repeat this enough. Thank you. :100: — 180 Proof

:cool:

The "faith is just people trying to get over their fear of death," trope never made sense to me in light of Calvinism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure. I have in mind those people who don't believe in hell. I don't know why they would not. But postulating heaven after this life, must be a consolation.

Death is just the beginning of your woes, and even if you might escape the torments of Hell, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it yourself.

That's more nightmare fuel than anything else. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was reading a bit on Samuel Johnson, the guy who thought he refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone. He seemed to be quite the witty character, very smart too.

He was afraid of death, not because it meant life here is over, but because he feared he wasn't good enough to go to heaven and feared eternal torment.

It's been mentioned before, but, that was some very cruel crap to have instilled on people. It's hard(er) to imagine now, but to think one is going to burn forever, is horrifying.

Sure. Absolute proof when it comes to belief is not possible for us. Only probabilities, likelihoods and reasons can give us better or worse reason to belief in something. But there's a reason why Descartes thought experiment is still captivating, it highlights several problems concerning the mind and the external world. To that extent, it's still worth considering.

Perhaps it is our own egotistical attachment to the idea of a 'self', and, I believe, that the Buddhists challenge the idea of there being a self, as an independent entity. — Jack Cummins

Sure. Consciousness is extremely strange. However, I think we risk forgetting that back in the 17th century, there was a different "hard problem". As Chomsky points out:

"History also suggests caution [in thinking about consciousness being the "hard problem"]. In early modern science, the nature of motion was the "hard problem." "Springing or Elastic Motions" is the "hard rock in Philosophy," Sir William Petty observed... The ''hard problem" was that bodies that seem to our senses to be at rest are in a "violent" state, with "a strong endeavor to fly off or recede from one another," in Robert Boyle's words" [Bold letters mine]

We never understood gravity in the way Newton or Locke or Hume would've liked - in an intuitive manner. We're still stuck not understanding it, but we've gotten used to it so it no longer seems puzzling.

So, generally there is a longstanding history of people being fascinated by the possibility of a nonmaterial dimension, which has appeared shrouded in mystery. — Jack Cummins

This makes sense. The only problem I see is that if we already don't understand the physical (consciousness, gravity and much more) why postulate something "nonphysical"? We are already stuck not understanding something. So saying "spiritual realm" imples we know what the physical includes.