Comments

  • Metaphysics of essence
    I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts.
    — Pop
    T Clark

    Language is not socially derived. That is, the means to speak. Of course the specific language is. And of course one needs social intercourse for speaking.
  • The definition of art
    Although the colour red is not in the object,RussellA

    The color is not in the object but on the object.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Have listened to Dawkins debate some Muslim guy and came to a few conclusions...stoicHoneyBadger

    You shouldn't take Dawkins too seriously. He has his own view on God. He just calls it Evolution. Evolution has created us. He states litteraly, in The Selfish Gene, that all organisms are just vessels in service of the selish genes (and memes, in the case of people) to ensure their survival. What a meme! Lamarck though has a different interpretation of evolution, something that is a fact. But why take it seriously, this fact? Religion is not about this fact but about God who created it and made it all happen.
  • An analysis of the shadows
    The analysis of the shadows, part 1.

    Shadows are cast. The 2D shadow of a child eating icecream in the train, reveals features of the true child. The true objects of the true world can not be known to one living in a cave onto which' walls only shadows are cast. The moment though it is seen that one casts shadows themselves, a new contemplation will be immanent.

    To be continued...
  • How can chance be non-deterministic?
    It can happen to the best of Buddhists that a hint of materialism sneaks into their thinking.)baker

    What's wrong with materialism? Matter's true nature is unknown. It stays mystique, even if it's matter "only".
  • Is 'information' physical?


    Information can be appied to a physical sysstem. It is a number (the entropy) that we can calculate. It's an inherent property though it can be argues it's just a subjective number, as all numbers are. It's a measure of the ways a system can be in formation. The highest value allows only one formation (chaos), while the lowest, zero, allows only one too: total order.

    The in-between value corresponds to the nicest kind of being in formation. These formations allow life.