People on the forum said it is not allowed to talk about fundamental reality... — Carlo Roosen
Is it ok if I refer to "Bubblespeak" in the future? I don't mind.
I can unpublish my website, I don't mind.
But people are asking for more information about my project. Even in this thread, unenlightened was asking more. How should I handle that? Earlier I said, look at my profile, you'll find a link. Mentioning that was allowed, according to jamal. I said a few times Google "Babelspeak", maybe that I shouldn't do?
I am reasonable. But please give me a workable solution. — Carlo Roosen
Just because I have a different opinion, that is no reason to ban me. — Carlo Roosen
Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters: No links to personal websites. Instant deletion of post followed by a potential ban.
...
The billiard ball which rolls on the table does not possess the possibility of being turned
from its path by a fold in the cloth; neither does the possibility of deviation belong to the cloth; it can be established only by a witness synthetically as an external relation
...
Fromm contrasts symbiotic union with mature love, the final way people may seek union, as union in which both partners respect the integrity of the other.[24] Fromm states that "Love is an active power in a man",[26] and that in the general sense, the active character of love is primarily that of "giving".[27] He further delineates what he views as the four core tenets of love: care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge.[28] He defines love as care by stating that "Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love", and gives an example of a mother and a baby, saying that nobody would believe the mother loved the baby, no matter what she said, if she neglected to feed it, bathe it, or comfort it.[28] He further says that "One loves that for which one labours, and one labours for that which one loves."[29]
I wonder if we can get past these factors? I'm framing it as a question, not as a claim. — Tom Storm
...
The truth of the matter is this: No god is a philosopher or seeker after wisdom, for he is wise already; nor does any man who is wise seek after wisdom. Neither do the ignorant seek after wisdom. For herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with himself: he has no desire for that of which he feels no want.'
'But who then, Diotima,' I said, 'are the lovers of wisdom, if they are neither the wise nor the foolish?'
'A child may answer that question,' she replied; 'they are those who are in a mean between the two; Love is one of them. For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant.
... — Plato, Symposium
Well there is no metric for measuring if a belief is correct or not and that is the reason why being neutral while making a decision is important because only 1 belief or a few beliefs regarding a certain topic can be correct and most beliefs are wrong and that's why mathematically being neutral and making decisions without showing baisenes towards your own beliefs is the best option in most of the cases — QuirkyZen
How does habituation work if a person doesn't have any innate sense of leftness vs rightness? I'm asking. — frank
Could you lay that out in broad strokes? I don't think a description of chirality will distinguish right from left for you. For that, you need a reference. All reference points are chosen by us for our purposes. — frank
I think you'll find that once you explore the math you mentioned a little further. — frank
It was: how do you tell your left from your right? I don't believe that answer is found in any math, but if you think it is, could you explain how? — frank
I don't think I uniquely endow space with directionality. I think directions come from the fact that each person has a POV from a body that's easily divided into quadrants. — frank
Witt's thoughts are in TLP 6.3111. — frank
6.3 Logical research means the investigation of all regularity. And
outside logic all is accident.
6.31 The so-called law of induction cannot in any case be a logical
law, for it is obviously a signicant proposition.And therefore
it cannot be a law a priori either.
6.32 The law of causality is not a law but the form of a law.*
6.321 Law of Causality is a class name. And as in mechanics there
are, for instance, minimum-laws, such as that of least action, so
in physics there are causal laws, laws of the causality form.
6.3211 Men had indeed an idea that there must be a law of least action, before they knew exactly how it ran. (Here, as always,
the a priori certain proves to be something purely logical.)
What would make me believe that the actual world has properties attached to space because I'm the one that's in the world? — Moliere
A possible world is an abstract object. It's stipulated. — frank
If there are no people in a world, and it has directionality, that directionality is come from you. — frank
Imagine a possible world in which there are no people. Are there directions there? Only from the point of view of someone outside that world who can establish a reference. — frank
Yes. It has to do with the fact that you're peering out of a body with ears that produce a sense of up and down. Left and right follow from that. Space doesn't come with a left and right. — frank
but did he also make the parallel with “Existence is not a predicate”? — J