and Philosophy is the coolest subject in the universe. :) — Corvus

Of course it is! :100: this is why I always respect Philosophy teachers and PhD’s a lot. They expend a lot of time teaching to us the right path to learn and read philosophy.

Sure, this idea is from pure insight and faith, but there is no proof to say, it is wrong. Therefore it is true. :D — Corvus

:up: completely. I also think that is a pretty beautiful way of thinking.

Without the mental activity, it would be illogical to suggest that the being can conceive anything. — Corvus

Agreed. This is one of the most important debates inside philosophy. Not having awareness after death is an issue that even scares me a bit. How unfair it seems that after a life where you read and study a lot of things, then disappear in The cosmos... probably this is why is so worthy do a lot of things before death.
Another interesting fact is the wish of many people of “becoming” a tree afterwards. Their bodies are buried in a field with a seed and then, a pretty tree born in it. It is a beautiful act really.

Truth is the same across all nations and races and languages. Once you know the truth you do not need to translate anything. It's not found in books. — hope

No... clearly not. What a simple statement and it is full of fallacies.
Truth can’t be the same across the countries. It is impossible because it is a concept very interpretable. What is truth for you, it can be false for me...
You need books... it is very important the act of read and develop your knowledge. You can’t have experiences for the act of living only.

Yes... but we should to figure out what the book says because it is translated from Ancient Chinese...
You can’t have an opinion of Tao if you do not read what Lao Tse wrote and then, how we translate him. This is why Tao is complex.
Saying Tao is “awareness” is just your opinion.

Tao is just the old word for consciousness — hope

Not necessarily... it is a big debate what “Tao” means. It depends a lot which book you have in your hands. My book version speaks about Tao as the “Principle”. But for other authors, like Derek Lin, he doesn’t even translate it.
It is just Tao, like speaking about God, one, Demiurge, etc...

Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

Of course, we will do so. It will depend in our incomes and the purpose of use that robot. But, who knows? Probably these robots will have some rights in the future. I guess we cannot hire them with an agreement or according to civil law :chin:

Just to share another reference related to this thread with you: the electromagnetic spectrum.

What is significant about this part of the spectrum, however, is that the particular spectrum of radiation emitted by the Sun peaks right in the yellow wavelengths of visible light. Of all the colors of light, yellow seems to us to be the closest in bightness and transparency to white light itself. This is not a coincidence. The Sun is a yellow star. — James Clerk Maxwell

Interesting! Isn’t it? Consider “yellow” as one of the most purest colors because it comes from sun and then, lights.

Link of the study explanation: https://www.friesian.com/quanta.htm#note-4

The first video (I didn't watch the second video) is stupid nonsense and disinformation. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sorry. Mi fault for sharing it, I thought it could be interesting.

But that source would be a combination of number, shape, mass, chemical composition or whatever that creates types of emission, transmission and reflectance. The colors themselves would remain secondary qualities. — Marchesk

True! I defend why this article is important and I enjoyed with a quickly review. I will read it deeply later on. It is interesting how modern studies develop the study of colours when in the times of John Locke were just "secondary attributes/qualities" as you explained :up:

Physicalism is not a particularly popular theory of color. Sometimes philosophers malign it as the product of a "scientistic" ideology that unthinkingly takes science as the touchstone of what is real. Some color scientists would complain that physicalism does not respect science enough. Proper attention to the facts of color vision, they would say, shows that colors are really "in the brain."

Agreed :up: :100:

Thank you for sharing this article, it is so interesting and it reminds me and feel nostalgic about John Locke's empiricism. Even the article stars saying:

Color is the subject of a vast and impressive body of empirical research and theory

I want, if you do not mind, share here an important study of John Locke related to colour and our perception.

We learn that there are three "primary colors," : magenta, yellow, and cyan, and that when we mix these colors, we get intermediate colors, like green, orange, and purple. Mixing them all gets something like black, but then adding black or white separately can produce a large variety of different shades and tones of color. This is what Isaac Newton himself did when he first understood the spectrum of light

If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, it passes through all the colours, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on? — John Locke.

It is so beautiful that the time give reasons and proofs to John Locke theory about imaginary colours because the article you shared explains:

Color is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects or lights. (1999b, p. 95)
And:

There may be light of different wavelengths independent of an observer, but there is no color independent of an observer, because color is a psychological phenomenon that arises only within an observer. (1999b, p. 97)[3]

. If we're directly acquainted with productance surfaces, why does it take modern science to realize that? We're aware that objects looked colored. — Marchesk

I think science develops such principle because it wants to explain what is going on with colorblind people. They see the shaped objects colorful but with different tones or at least different from our "global world rule of colours that supposedly are common in the world". Why are they wrong if they see a tree as "yellow" instead of "green" when they were taught with such vocabulary?
Another important quote:

If we block a child in a room all of his childhood teaching him the green colour while is actually yellow. Will he name all of his life “green” when he would actually see yellow? In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc... — John Locke

This OP about colours are so interesting! Good article I will print it

You would ignore that consuming food is a response to hunger in order to maintain some position held dear. — Cheshire

If I don’t do so I die of starvation... see how weak we are.

How much not to hit you with a hammer? — Cheshire

True. It is not necessary being so pessimistic because it can be unhealthy. I think inside anyone’s realism can be some pessimism to handle to. But everything in a responsible measure to not end up harming ourselves or even worse, suicidal thoughts.
I think one of the objectives of Kierkegaard was to show the people that living with suffering was accurate and we do not have to avoid it until is so miserable leading with it.

I think we are discussing similar words in different contexts. — Cheshire

I feel the same :up:

For example, the truth value of the proposition "John is black" depends on the truth value of the proposition "John exists". — Hello Human

I think this argument is twisted. We can't give this level of value or awareness to something as subjective as "black". If John is black is due to our perception about reality and how our interpretation works (because we the humans tend to categorize everything as ethnics and races) . John exists and then will be still existing as a living human, doesn't matter the "black" character here.
What is "black" to someone could be "brown" to others... Depends a lot of perception.

Interesting argument indeed. It is true that the queen only can move according how the rules are established but this is just a basic axiom to pursue equity of opportunities of win between both players. You and me (if we want to) can change the rules in a private play without competition.

Back to mathematics, when you said "5 + 3 equals 8", it reminds me an interesting video that probably you would like about how free of interpretation are our sum orders.

Food is so necessary to our lives that we have to pay some money to get the average calories per day and then have the body ready.
But, there are some aspects which makes us being totally humans: uncertainty, sadness, pain, weeping, etc...
I would never pay for quitting those emotions. The opposite is becoming a robot or just a program. I understand it is quite miserable when we are living an experience like these emotions are meant to but thanks to this, philosophy and other knowledge development is when start to flourish

how we might prevent increasing and/or reducing gratuitious suffering of ourselves by helping others do the same. — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

as an ineliminable fact as S & K conceive — 180 Proof

They impacted me exactly in this way. I guess this happened because I read some of Kierkegaard when I was having a difficult period of time so their theories helped me out as a “life jacket” because I remember seeing everybody so happy except me.
Then, I discovered this authors saying quotes like

The anxiety is intense when the person is most original — Kierkegaard.

and completely changing the view of my life or at least understanding that is completely reasonable suffer or the act of suffering.

Good question. To be honest, I would not pay anything to “not suffer” because probably this emotion is one of which makes us so original (Kierkegaard).
I can’t estimate in money how much I should suffer along my life. But a considerable load to keep me up in my progress as an individual.
The people are full of weaknesses.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540198 (re: moral facts: suffering sapients)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/572299 (re: consequences for future suffering) — 180 Proof

These were so interesting to read. It comes to my mind two different points of view: Søne Kierkegaard (the concept of anxiety) and Schopenhauer (his concept of “weeping” as one of the purest emotions in human behavior)

Here is mine:

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Distribution_of_prime_numbers

:rofl: :death: That's a pretty Kierkegaardian point of view but I am agree because life tend to be pity and dreams are just dreams.

Teen wins Covid vaccine lottery in NC — frank

I was skeptical about this news but after reading this:

Chavis said she plans to use her money to fund her education. She plans to major in psychology and wants to become a therapist. She also said she may treat herself to a shopping spree.

I changed my perception.

Yes, I am happy that amount of money lands on wisdom and responsible hands.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/#GdeConUni — TonesInDeepFreeze

Already read it. Thanks for the link, I understand it better now :up:

Just what is or what does it mean to be at the limits of one's language? — Shawn

Check this out, I guess you would like it because is so related to your question. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything

Interesting text indeed and thanks for your translation. I like Taoism so for me is welcome bringing up on the table some debates related.
I defend value depends on derivative orders because two kind of arguments:

1. We can type here a correlation about Nirvana in Buddhism. Along all the text it flows the sense that we have to aim to the “simple” or “one”. It is so related to nature and Nirvana.

The Buddha is even said to have discovered that Salvation, or Nirvâṇa, ("Extinction"), is nevertheless simply living "normal human life... doing normal human things" — Nirvana.

2. Coming up to Taoism itself. Lao Tse used to wrote an important doctrine about “emptiness” and “simplicity”. Most of his analects are so related to nature, wisdom, peace, etc... as pillar of how to build a properly life. This reminds me of verse XI:

Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality — Tao Te Ching

It is true that Lao Tse is so free of interpretation. But Derek Lin says the following argument that I consider is related to your text:

When we cut open a wall to make space for windows and doors, we notice that it is these openings that make the room truly useful to us. If such openings did not exist, we would have no way of accessing the room!
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness. — Derek Lin Tao

Why the zero appears in your formula? Is it related to “transfinite” concept ∞?

I think I didn’t get your argument because I am guessing that transfinite recursion is an infinite constructible loop at the base clause. (?)

I am confused but this enigma is making me think a lot.

I think OP is an argument for spending time with children rather than having children. You don’t need to be a parent to be in a position where children might ask you interesting questions. In fact, I would imagine school teachers get these questions more often. — TheHedoMinimalist

Agreed :up:



To be honest I guess that kid asked “where the edge is located” so randomly without any base. Probably the child saw it in TV or a book previously. It is not innate making those such of questions because we need some knowledge and culture to do so.
Kids can make these questions about “physics” or “mathematics” because they are stubborn questioning literally everything.
This is exactly an argument which develops exactly the opposite from the OP: not having kids

either most people, scientists included, are fools or the Nobel Committee back then (1921) were complete morons. — TheMadFool

To be honest, I think they still be morons :lol: sometimes I don’t even understand some Nobel laureates (at least in literature). There are a lot of good writers who died without winning it like Baroja or Cheever.

Oh my fault! Thank you for explaining me both concepts are different :up:

Instead of consider Einstein as a scientific, we should consider it as philosopher of relativism. This only could fit to understand all the paradoxes Einstein wrote in his life.

The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you" [Theaetetus 152a]
— Protagoras of Abdera.

I can find only two papers, neither related to this topic. If he taught at a community college it might have been difficult to do research and publish. — jgill

Yes you are right. There are not articles from Ravitch connected to this thread. There is only one article published here: Springer link.

I found related to this topic the following paper or "scheme":

Principles of Predicate Calculus

was thinking of the Platonic reality of a very large universe of sets, and was not thinking about the utility of set theory in physics. On the other hand he did do some work in relativity, so who knows — fishfry

Harold Ravitch, in his own opinion about Gödel, after finishing the dissertation, wrote this:

The literature, in making Gödel a Platonist, a Kantian, a Cantorian, and so forth, seems to have overlooked this possibility. We choose to view Gödel as a unique philosopher and not try to classify him. — Harold Ravitch

I guess (just my simple opinion) that Gödel was transforming through the years as metamorphosis. I am agree with you that so clearly he was a platonist but it is true that he reflects other points of view in his writings. To be honest I don’t defend we should exclude Gödel from these areas and see him as and “unique”philosopher as Ravitch wrote. Probably there are different versions of him to be consider of: Platonism, realism, relativism, etc...

I think the important fact here is about omission. When you are forced to choose between X, Y and Z previously you made a decision which lead you in this situation. So, for this reason, your are somehow forced to do “something” because omission could be worse.
There always be a lot of choices but I guess no human can stay without saying or doing whatever the choices show to us. I think is even part of the human nature to be in the act of “choosing” along their life.
Omission could be an interesting fact here. In some criminal code countries it is even a penalty not taking a choice when you are forced to (well probably this example was to extreme)

Probably you could be interested on reading this article: Madrid plans urban forest.

Despite the fact Madrid is the second city of the world with the most trees planted, I am happy our Mayor is motivated to keep planting more than 100.000 of many species. I guess it is important not only because our health and living but to show how a developed European capital city should look like.

I really want to see more green in this picture of my city!

we need to be prepared for either taking more than a generation to happen — Isaac

Completely agree. Good point :up: :100:

Good question. I guess it depends a lot of how are the parents. Sadly, we live in a very selfish/dangerous world so I think is not so profitable to this kids being born...
but it these parents are good persons and teach to the kids ethics, values, morality, etc... Probably it could be totally worthy

Even for someone like me, with basic training in math and logic, this makes sense. — TheMadFool

I thought exactly the same :clap: :lol:

circulus in probando - a premise is the conclusion. — TheMadFool

Interesting argument and point. What we are talking about here reminds me a lot from Aristotle's syllogisms, but I do not want put it on the table because it looks like nobody likes in our modern Era the syllogisms at all (they are pretty criticised by most of the authors), because this is all about (in my point of view) of how realistic or at least how solid the mathematics can be in our argumentation.

it assumes certain propositions (axioms) to be true and builds an edifice of true (mathematical) propositions on them — TheMadFool

Exactly in this part, I guess Gödel and Ravitch concided. Those axioms or propositions are so related with the "realism" itself.

he is already dead... after 53 years of his thesis approval. — javi2541997

Update: he retired from teaching in 2019. Look: https://www.coursicle.com/lavc/professors/Harold+Ravitch/
So, for more than 50 years he was a teacher. Probably he has a lot of papers related to this

Thanks for linking the article. — fishfry

Thank you and welcome :up:

ps -- I noted that the passage you quoted about vicious circles mentions the problems with Dedekind cuts. I'm not entirely sure of exactly what they mean, — fishfry

Despite the fact Ravitch quotes a lot of interesting teachers or PhD’s, the language and technical paragraphs are so complex. I don’t understand some parts of his dissertation neither so is up to us trying to give our meaning as we are doing here, debating. I am agree with you, this is an interesting academic paper and dissertation. Imagine trying to debate with Ravitch himself about he was thinking back then, but probably he is already dead... after 53 years of his thesis approval.

How do we download our posts? — TheMadFool

Good question! I also would like to download my posts as a PDF file or something related.