Comments

  • Against Stupidity
    :flower:
  • Against Stupidity
    Hitler wasn’t stupid. — Wayfarer

    Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1 — Mike Godwin

    :point: Godwin's Law

    This thread is, I suppose, fast-tracking Godwin's law.
  • Against Stupidity
    There's an icon in Buddhism, of the pig, rooster and snake all pursuing each other in a vicious circle. The snake is hatred, the pig is greed, and the chicken is stupidity. These are the 'three poisons'. — Wayfarer

    I'm shocked, stupefied that you got that symbolism wrong. It's actually,

    The Three Poisons

    1. Snake = Hatred
    2. Pig = Ignorance
    3. Rooster = Vanity

    I guess the causal connection is like this: Ignorance (root cause) -> Vanity -> Hatred -> Ignorance (root cause). I'm not quite clear how hatred leads to ignorance. Perhaps, as some say, feelings (emotions) cloud one's judgment (hate being one of the strongest emotions out there).

    So I'm saying that stupidity is only part of the picture — Wayfarer

    Absolutely! :fire:
  • Against Stupidity
    When a wise man hears of the Tao,

    he immediately begins to live it.

    When an average man hears of the Tao,

    he believes some of it and doubts the rest.

    When a foolish man hears of the Tao,

    he laughs out loud at the very idea.

    If it were not for that laugh,

    it would not be the Tao.     — Lao Tzu
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    ↪Wayfarer

    Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own. — T. R. V. Murti

    :up: The no-doctrines way. That touched a chord in me. The notion of "factually correct" becomes meaningless.
  • Against Stupidity
    Hanlon's Razor

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Hanlon

    I have issues, serious ones, with stupidity but then there's only one species which, on the whole, isn't stupid - homo sapiens - and look at the mess the earth is in? Brainless, stupid, plants and non-human animals seem, paradoxically, far, far wiser than humans.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    It's hard to disentangle academia from politics, isn't it? — Wheatley

    That's an understatement.

    ↪Michael Zwingli
    :ok:
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Just ask all the anti-Israel people on this forum. lol

    There are a lot of them...     — Wheatley

    Sorry to hear that but not that I'm anti-Palestine.
  • What is a Fact?
    Look at creationism. At some point they figured out they weren't making much progress just disagreeing with the top line claims of biologists and paleontologists, so they started attacking radio-carbon dating — Srap Tasmaner

    At least they know science's weak spot! Kudos to them! Scientists should respect an opponent who's aware of their Achilles' heel.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Seriously, there's good and bad people from every country, including Israel. — Wheatley

    Yep, :ok: It's hard to tell the difference. I thought you had something on him. It would've made for, at the very least, an interesting conversation.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    No, I don't mean anthing. — Wheatley

    :sweat:
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Harari
    — Ennui Elucidator
    Israeli historian.     — Wheatley

    What's so funny? I just started a book (Sapiens) by him. Should I stop? WTF?
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    ↪Wayfarer
    So, would I be correct if I said,

    1. Saṁvṛti (provisional truth): about the world as it appears, Maya (illusion) is truth-apt. Kantian phenomenon.

    2. Paramārtha (ultimate truth): about the world as it is. Kantian noumenon

    ?
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Pro tip: Buddhism preceded (Pauline) Christianity by five/six centuries at least. The latter could not have "lead to" the former. — 180 Proof

    My bad, I should've been clearer. "Leads to" was meant in the sense ideologically and not chronologically. That's how far-sighted the buddha was; he was way ahead of his time and struck a balance between religion proper (metaphysically heavy) and secular ethics (metaphysically empty). He was, in the end, all about the middle path.
  • The Decay of Science
    Complementarity (Physics)

    The complementarity principle is just that one object may possess pairs of properties such that only one but not both can be observed/measured at a time. Reminds me of a two-timing person; fae can see/meet only one partner but not both given any moment in time.

    I fail to see how this relates to the decline of science. :chin:
  • The Decay of Science
    And what did you just try to explain? That scientists are mortal like normal people? We've touched on this -- violence kills, absolute violence kills absolutely! What now? A problem, yes! But hardly metaphysical in nature. — Caldwell

    I was simply trying out a different avenue, thinking of other ways of how science could cyclically rise and fall.
  • The Decay of Science
    Hi Tobi,

    You can critique science on political and economic grounds. But that would be different from the arguments of cycle framework.     — Caldwell

    I don't know what your version of cycle framework vis-à-vis science is but have you considered this one: We begin with a nonscientific paradigm (religion/others) and slowly but steadily science replaces it. A golden age of science follows - boatloads of useful inventions, life becomes easier - but it isn't all sunshine and rainbows - powerful weapons of mass destruction are also produced. One thing leads to another and these weapons are unleashed, exterminating 99% of the population, all scientists and other experts die in this mass extinction, and we are, voila, back to square one (some say we'll be sent back to the stone age).
  • How is language useful?
    Couldn't get into that — Wheatley

    It's quite interesting. I've read only a handful of chapters but I've already learned quite a bit.
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    Why do you say that the notion of correct usage becomes meaningless? As Sam26 says, the verification is not circular. The individual applies one's own criteria and makes the judgement of "correct". Isn't that how any judgement of "correct" is made, by an individual applying what is believed to be the relevant criteria? Where's the problem? What makes such a judgement meaningless? — Metaphysician Undercover

    A private language user, if fae's not sure if fae's using the sign, say, S, correctly has only one option: ask faerself about whether S is being used correctly or not but fae doesn't know that; isn't that why fae's asking faerself? It's like a judge in court who's unsure about a certain article of the law and then consults faerself about it; fae doesn't know, that's what being unsure means.
  • Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)
    Thales of Miletus was a Greek mathematician, astronomer and pre-Socratic philosopher from Miletus in Ionia, Asia Minor. He was one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many, most notably Aristotle, regarded him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition,  and he is otherwise historically recognized as the first individual known to have entertained and engaged in scientific philosophy. He is often referred to as the Father of Science. — Wikipedia

    The connexion between science and philosophy stretches bsck to the very beginning of philosophy or should I say science. Is there a difference?
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    My take is that it's not so much about the "nature or consciousness," but about the nature of language against the backdrop of consciousness. But ya, there is definitely something to be said about consciousness when analyzing Wittgenstein's comments over all. However, it seems to be more of an aside. It would be interesting though to study consciousness through Wittgenstein's eyes. — Sam26

    I brought up consciousness because Wittgenstein, despite his exceptional ability to find good examples, only uses ones that are about consciousness, specifically that aspect (sensation) which philosophers term qualia which I hear is a hot topic in mind philosophy. He didn't have a choice which has its own point to make about the relationship between consciousness and language viz. we can't think about, linguistically, private mental experiences in a consistent/coherent manner.

    I think we agree here, except for the idea that it's circular. I'm not sure about that, you may be correct though, but it depends on how the argument is framed. — Sam26

    I have my doubts too - I skimmed through the Wikipedia and Stanford Enyclopedia Of Philosophy articles on private language argment and pieced together the puzzle as best as I could.

    How's it going at your end? Any progress?
  • Are psychological models discovered or enforced?
    I'm just my body. Thoughts influence me. Just like feelings or sensations and perceptions. Of mine and of others. If someone has a seven-year itch I already start to scratch. Am I a composite? Yes. Of feet, legs, hands, arms, torso, a head and face on top. Doing zillions of things with them. Idea, thought, or emotion and perception inspired. — Pristina

    :ok:
  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    I really don’t see the relevance of this remark. — Xtrix

    Forget that I mentioned it.
  • Are psychological models discovered or enforced?
    ↪Pristina
    You are a composite of who you think you are and who others think you are. You have an identity, a self, in every conceivable discipline - a sociological one, an anthroplogical one, a philosophical one, a psychological one, etc.

    Causal-reflexivity is simply the fact that ideas influence/modify ideas, thoughts transform thoughts: psychological claims (ideas) cause changes in our thought patterns which may, later, contradict the theory that caused this alterations.
  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    I’m sure it does. I think that might not be such a great thing, however. I think it says far more about politics than about “philosophers.”

    Regardless, nearly every politician out there is carrying around in their little heads the political and economic philosophy of some past thinker — whether we consider them philosophers or not doesn’t matter. They’re still the ones holding the levers of power. They and the business community.     — Xtrix

    Here's a thought. If you take people who refuse to vote in elections (the voter turnout is never 100%) as those who eschew engaging in politics then, consider the fact that dead people can't vote. Non-voters = dead persons.
  • What does hard determinism entail for ethics ?
    I argue it matters, for 2 reasons.
    1. Even if you comply, you are still free to change your mind later.
    2. Free choice implies more than one option. If the will is only free when saying no and nothing else, then there is only one option, which makes the choice no longer free. This looks like a self-contradiction.     — Samuel Lacrampe

    1 is just another of saying what I said (veto not volo, kind courtesy of @180 Proof)

    2 Obeying/complying rounds off to no free will; resisting/refusing rounds off to free will.
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    I'll take first bite.

    It appears that Wittgenstein's private language argument is about, all things considered, the subjective nature of consciousness and how that bears on language.

    A private language is dedicated to those aspects of experience that can't be made public and thus, with nothing to refer to, given a sign in a private language, a person trying to learn or translate the sign can't do both. It's as if the sign were attached to a thread that extends back to its referent kept in a pitchblack room - no way of discovering the referent.

    Wittgenstein then claims, for the private language user, the only possible means by which fae can know that fae is using a word/sign in that private language correctly is to consult oneself and that's problematic for the simple reason that whatever seems/is thought to be correct will be taken as correct. The notion of correct usage becomes meaningless as the verificatory process is, at the end of the day, circular: If you're unsure whether a word/sign is being used correctly by you, how can you ask yourself to check whether a word/sign is being used correctly by you?

    A private language, therefore, is incoherent - there's a high probability it lacks the required level of consistency between sign/word and referent to qualify as a legit language. The sign-referent pairing could be virtually random and the private language user wouldn't have the slightest clue - fae can't ask faerself to clear faer own doubt, fae doubts precisely because fae can't clear faer doubt.
  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    I didn’t say become a politician, I said become politically engaged. — Xtrix

    Ok but there must be a very good reason there are no philosopher politicians. Just like there are no Jain terrorists, it must mean something, no?
  • The Inflation Reduction Act
    Meaning becoming politically engaged? — Xtrix

    I don't have to check but I know of no philosopher who's also a politician.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    1. Christianity [metaphysically bloated: god, moral causation (good, heaven & bad, hell), divine command theory]

    leads to

    2. Buddhism [metaphysically trimmed down: no god but moral causation/law of karma (good, heaven/nirvana & bad, hell)]

    leads to

    2. Secular ethics [metaphysically empty: no god, limited moral causation (no to good, heaven & bad, hell but yes to what goes around comes around/you reap what you sow in this life and not beyond)]

    leads to

    3. My prediction: maturation of our moral intuitions [ethics becomes a branch of economics, making explicit what was always implied: quid pro quo (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours), favors/good deeds are organized into some kind of credit system and exchanged between individuals/groups, good for good's sake stops making sense].
  • What is a Fact?
    What is fact and what is fiction? — FredStair

    The plain and simple answer seems to be fiction is that which has no physical form or that which can't be verified. Fact, the exact opposite.
  • What is a Fact?
    This was a great post to read. Not that I keep track of who posts what but from what I can recall and associate with your screen name, probably my favorite. Funny it may sound sarcastic but it's really not. I will admit I'm not a fan of your if X is Y then Z posts. Then again, perhaps logic and morality are more intertwined than we like to think..

    So. The obvious questions/responses

    You claim to define therefore (more or less absolutely) know a real world which so begets the existence of an alternative. What makes one more real than the other? Your mere interpretation from your (and these are other people's words not mine) barely evolved senses or even simple presence? Ha. Doesn't a charlatan create a world that is real to those who observe and believe?

    But for all intents and purposes, let's call this interconnected experience we call life that we can interact and respond either positively or negatively with one another, as "the real world". Was all science and definitions or laws of reality defined 500 years ago? No. What on Earth would make you think, especially in this age of degeneracy and strife, they are now? There will always be more to learn. The only idea of a fact comes from a hypothesis that has yet to be confronted by an opposing truth.     — Outlander

    Let's just say, facts are ontological entities, in a sense what is, really is and truth is epistemological, what we know or think we know.
  • Jurassic Park Redux
    I don't really understand the logic of your analogy, but I do think it's feasible to compare genetic engineering with hacking the genetic code. I'm sure that's not even a novel idea. (Quick google: 'hacking and genetic engineering' - number one hit - Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity. Looks an interesting read. Will peruse in further detail. ....first thing I pick up is he's a Wuhan Lab Leak advocate, dials back my enthusiasm by about 3 out of 10, but will still consider....) — Wayfarer

    I now see what the problem is with ethics and genetic engineering. We, play along please, invented God because we realized that we fail as moral beings; thus the need for some all-good deity who never errs morally.

    The rapid developments in genetic engineering gives us the power that once only God wielded, power of life.

    This is/can be interpreted as an encroachment into divine premises but without divine moral clarity and infallibility. A very dangerous cocktail of knowledge (gene/life manipulation) and ignorance (moral deficiency) - the issue, it seems, is about Faustian Knowledge

    The erudite Faust is highly successful yet dissatisfied with his life, which leads him to make a pact with the Devil at a crossroads, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. — Wikipedia

    Knowledge, it seems, is something even the Devil trades in...for souls, one's morality.
  • What is a Fact?
    Fact is usually contrasted with Fiction. It (fact) differs from truth in that the latter can be assumed in a fictonal world. So, for instance, Sherlock Holmes lives in Baker street isn't a fact but in Conan Doyle's detective sleuth world, it's true. Similarly, but inversely, dragons don't exist is a fact but in the fictional Tolkien's world of elves, hobbits, dwarves, and orcs, that they do is true.

    It appears that facts are about the correspondence theory of truth as in propositions that speak of the real world as it is are facts but the correspondence theory of truth has a scope that encompasses fictional worlds too (as described above). Thus a fact corresponds to some quality or state of affairs in what we hold to be the real world but a truth can correspond to the same but in either the real world or a make-believe one.

    In short,

    1. If I utter a fact, it has to be about the real world.

    2. If I utter a truth, it can be either about the real world or a fictional world.
  • Jurassic Park Redux
    One of the concerns [sentience]. The other is the distinction between genetic engineering and selective breeding, although apparently this is too subtle a distinction for folks hereabouts. — Wayfarer

    Perhaps a computer analogy will aid the discussion. I turn on my laptop, wait for the OS to load, log in with my password, and click the game icon Civ VI and I play the game [high level computer language]. This is selective breeding.

    A hacker gets access to my computer; he instructs my computer to load the game Civ VI using binary code (1's and 0's) [machine language]. This is genetic engineering.

    The people who made my laptop (God) programmed it in machine language [1's and 0's]. The hacker (genetic engineer) compared to me (selective breeder) is much too close for comfort to those who made my laptop (God).

    In short, through genetic engineering we're displacing/replacing god and I reckon people don't take too kindly to that.
  • Are psychological models discovered or enforced?
    Are you saying the patients are the doctors and vice-versa? — Gobuddygo

    Self-reflection (examining ourselves) + Self-affecting (causal-reflexivity i.e. our thoughts cause other thoughts and these others, ad infinitum or cyclical)
  • You are not your body!
    "If you are a body, then why do you say 'my body', 'I have a body', and so on?" — Alkis Piskas

    We also say, "he's lost his mind!" and "her keen mind cracked the case.". By your reasoning, we're not our minds either. We're neither our bodies nor our minds! What are we then?

    There's something there to which both a particular mind and body belong to, that thing we refer to with the word "I". What is it? Could it simply be a mental construct, simply a collection of thoughts, experiences, memories, etc. lumped together under one heading, I. If yes, the self is just a concept like God or infinity, lacking the ontological status of a body or a mind, both things that do exist (I am thinking and my back sometimes itches).
  • Are psychological models discovered or enforced?
    But they can't explain each other. Are they really explaining behavior, or are the creating certain behavior in adherents? — khaled

    If memory serves, there's the idea that when it comes to psychololgy, it's very difficult to put the required level of distance between the observer/researcher and the observed/subject because, well, they're one and the same viz. us; that would preclude an objective analysis. Say, a psychologist comes up with a theory; this theory once known would modify our behavior and we might comply/rebel and that would screw up any future studies based on that theory as those who consciously resist the theory's principles would throw a spanner in the works. Thus, any psychological theory, once widely known, would result in a negative feedback loop that would destroy the theory for all future experiments from that point on would give negative results.
  • Jurassic Park Redux
    It appears that we can't make a case against genetic engineering for the simple reason that we're already doing what it does - choose traits we find desirable - by way of exerting evolutionary selection pressure on each other. This is the meat and potatoes of evolution and now that we know how nature does it (genes), we can too but much faster and in a more controlled manner (gene manipulation).

    It's interesting that we have qualms about doing what we've always been doing. It's kinda like being reluctant to participate in artificially inseminating a woman while simultaneously willing to engage in coitus with her to make her conceive. It's the same thing.

    Nevertheless, @Wayfarer's concerns center on the welfare of a sentient entity. How will the animal take it? Will it be happy/sad? Needless to say the success of the project will have ramifications on all sentient beings; after all, what's to keep genetic engineers from repeating the experiment on other animals and that includes us by the way? In a broader context, is genetic engineering as a whole a negation of the value of sentience? We are, for sure, self-experimenting at this point and while I personally see no harm in it, some may find it a bit too much for their sensibilities (ref: The Invisible Man; Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde).
  • Animal intelligence
    My point exactly. How is a tool going to allow a tiger to transcend his capabilities? Is it going to carry a butcher knife in its maw? Seems impracticable consider it has claws and fangs that do the job just as well. — Hermeticus

    You misunderstand, I meant to say claws, fangs, strength aren't tools.
Home » TheMadFool