Comments

  • Can Buddhism accomodate the discoveries of modern science?
    There's always an element of chance. Not everything is fixed by karma, because reality is not fixed. — Wayfarer

    Where the idea of karma becomes negative, is when it is used to assign blame or rationalise misfortune. Reflection on karma should always be positive, that the right intention produces a positive result. Blaming anything on karma, or saying something happened to someone because of their karma, easily becomes fatalism and superstition. It is not a compassionate attitude. — Wayfarer

    I maybe wrong of course but, if there's a chance factor in all this, even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. I could, god forbid, lead a life of debauchery, even order genocide and torture, in most horrible ways possible, and, by a stroke of luck, become enlightened. Nirvana, then, is nothing more than a game of die - about lucky people, not good people.
  • Can you justify morality without religion?
    What is harmonious? Living in harmony? Singing all the same song in harmony? No fights? No war? I'm not talking about the modern high-tec war in which whole cities can be blown away in a wink, but war between groups from which both parties emerge better although maybe at the cost of lifes, but who says human life is that important? Because god created it!

    Is crime really that bad? Depends.

    Happiness for all? What is happiness?

    Etcetera. You can counter that what you wrote in your comment is commonly understood. Everybody knows what peace is. That's why people of Afghanistan, a country unknown by most people before the U.S. entered there to give the Mudjahedin a hand and some Stingers in their Jihad against the former USSR, thereby laying the foundations for the war on terror.     — Robotictac

    Harmony, socially, means everybody getting along with each other. Simple. I don't see the difficulty in grasping that concept in the setting of a group/community of indivduals. It, as far as I can tell, includes but is not limited to zero suffering of the kind intentionally inflicted by one individual/group on another.

    Happiness is a state of mental and physical well-being, one we all, without exception, aspire to. You're overthinking it. Part of doing philosophy is to know when to stop philosophizing, right?

    The gist of my post is, in the simplest sense, understanding the need for morality, which should be uniform across peoples, puts moral theories on a solid, universal foundation, the net result being objective moral codes - if we all want the same thing and we're all alike, we should converge on the same means (ethical codes) to get that which we want, no? That's, in my book, objective morality.

    That is "objective" of politics. The "objective" of objective morality is, on the other hand, 'intrinsically reducing the miseries of self by extrinsically reducing miseries of others'. I try not to conflate politics with morality in order to make it easier to morally critique policy and politically mediate moral disagreements. — 180 Proof

    Firstly, I don't quite get your point. Secondly, it doesn't look like there's a clear a boundary between politics and ethics although the past American president (Donald Trump) puts that idea into question.
  • Can you justify morality without religion?
    Rather than waste time breaking our heads whether morality is objective, we should, I suggest, focus on its objective as in its aim/goal. We want a harmonious society, peace, zero crime, happiness for all, and so on. How could we make that happen? This, I feel, is a more productive line of inquiry although, I must add, this approach to right and wrong would have the additional benefit of making morality objective too.
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. — Charles Baudelaire

    The second greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is the good guy. — Ken Ammi

    It appears that those who deny mainstream views/official explanations are of the same breed as people who have the so-called God Gene put forth by Dean Hamer - it predisposes people to (always) consider the possibility of a hidden, third-party, force/agent in all human affairs. This concealed-from-view force/agent/actor used to go by the name god, now it's the government, big businesses, and so on. The God Gene must have something to latch onto it seems. I'm probably talking about conspiracy theories more than anything else but the OP seems broad enough to accommodate my point.
  • Can Buddhism accomodate the discoveries of modern science?
    There's a lot of commentary on that. Basically I think Buddhism is quite open to scientific method, but not compatible with scientific materialism — Wayfarer

    Bingo!
  • Can Buddhism accomodate the discoveries of modern science?
    Don’t have time to respond right now but start with this.

    I’ll add more later.     — Wayfarer

    Thanks. My take on karma is that it determines the circumstances of our birth and life till the very end, all things that depend on it - which is a lot (parental care, access to education, money for basic comforts, the religion you're born into, whether you'll ever encounter philosophy, will you have the resources to do philosophy?, and so on) - but that, if you'll notice, also includes, quite unfortunately it seems, your exposure to buddhism and knowledge free will, key components, I reckon, of your ability to respond appropriately, in a manner that you don't make matters worse karmically speaking, to your circumstances, good/bad.

    Much like...

    In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. — Thanissaro Bikkhu

    What I said above is what I gleaned from the article you provided a link to but also includes some thoughts shared by a mahayana buddhist monk I happened to meet. There's a harmony of views that I feel should be stated.

    Buddhism, contextualized in the free will- determinism debate, makes it amply clear that the past does determine the present but depending on one's karma, one can gain knowledge of one's free will and also buddhism; armed with these two, we can think/speak/act in ways that'll improve the conditions of our next life, a positive feeback loop begins to take shape and before you know it, you're having tea with the buddha in nirvana land.

    However, what about chance or randomness? Known as luck, there doesn't seem to be any room for it in buddhism's karmic causality.
  • Philosophy as 'therapy'.
    So, yeah, philosophy is therapeutic since it informs a person on how to deal with reality in the most rational way possible; philosophy, despite being speculative in some respects, ensures that we don't lose touch with reality, something the non compos mentis are awkward at.
    — TheMadFool

    But what about reality needs so much explanation? Arent these thoughts counterproductive to living or achieving satisfaction? I mean, if happiness is what is commonly assumed as most important then, why do we flounder at it so much? Why can't they teach about this in academia?     — Shawn

    The basic idea is to find out how the world works and align one's thoughts/speech/deeds to those discoveries. "Be realistic," the philosopher says and that's both an advice and a warning. Heed it and a good life is almost guaranteed, fail to do so and a world of pain awaits you.

    The reason "...we flounder..." is we're unrealistic, and part of the problem is our imagination which can, in a matter of minutes, create worlds upon worlds of what in religioius circles is known as a better place. These imaginary places are so appealing that we're eager beyond measure to defy the wisdom of the adage, one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We then begin to dwell in fantasy because the world is just too dull and miserable, relatively speaking; it goes without saying that such an existence is going to be fraught with danger and a whole lot of suffering.
  • Does Buddhist teaching contain more wisdom than Christianity?
    It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation.
    — TheMadFool
    I suppose there are California Buddhists who believe such a thing (a "California Buddhist" is a person with some interest in Buddhism, but who believes Buddhism is, basically, whatever you want it to be (as long as it's something politically correct)).

    Otherwise, Buddhists believe there is Right View, and they don't believe that "all paths lead to the top of the mountain".     — baker

    I say that buddhism doesn't have the notion of orthodoxa (right belief) thanks @Wayfarer because it doesn't have an active proselytizing wing/arm unlike christianity and even islam. This wouldn't have been the case if buddhism considers itself orthodoxa as that would entail a religious responsibility to convert people.
  • Are there things we can’t describe with the English language?
    Wittgenstein, it seems, was especially affected by the word "game." He realized that, in truth, no one really knows how to define it but then everyone uses it and uses it correctly. It's actually a paradox very similar to St. Augustine's time paradox:

    What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
    — St. Augustine (on time)
    — TheMadFool

    Good quote. That's W in a nutshell, perhaps. 'Knowing what it is' is something banal like knowing how and when to invoke and respond to the familiar token. We can know what time it is without knowing what time is (if we insist on believing that time must be something in the first place...something more than a useful token.)     — Zugzwang

    :ok:
  • Can Buddhism accomodate the discoveries of modern science?
    Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism?
    — TheMadFool
    Yes, he said that at some point, his teachings will become lost.

    Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right?
    If that were the case, then we'd be living in a chaotic universe, and in a chaotic universe enlightenment wouldn't be possible (since the attainment of enlightenment depends on there being cause and effect, reliably), and the whole project of looking for true happiness would be pointless. Upon realizing this, one would give up on it, and succomb to misery.

    Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.
    In which case, why still call it "Buddhism"?     — baker

    @Wayfarer, I seek your counsel.

    Indeed, causality is central to buddhism as it is in other religions. The law of karma (moral causation) along with reincarnation provides a pretty good explanatory framework for a lot of otherwise inexplicable events we encounter in life which we've come to love and hate as luck, good and bad respectively. Of the mundane, what goes around comes around, too obvious to state.

    What this means, in the most basic sense, is there is no chance, no randomness. Everything happens for a reason or

    There are no accidents. — Master Oogway (Kungfu Panda)



    I wonder how that fits into the biological concept of random genetic mutation as a driving force behind evolution. Looks like buddhism isn't as science-friendly as I thought it was.
  • Are there things we can’t describe with the English language?
    I reckon the grear Lao Tzu is referring to what I suppose is some kind of God-like entity or a Cosmic Principle that's behind all there is, every object, every phenomenon, basically everything, with the Tao.
    — TheMadFool

    I'm reluctant to get into a discussion about that here     — T Clark

    :ok:

    "Tao" means "way." "Te" sort of means "virtue." "Ching" means book. Tao Te Ching means the book of the way and virtue, more or less. — T Clark

    :up:

    I think you're right, but I've always preferred to think about it as a joke Lao Tzu is telling. — T Clark

    Great attitude!

    As I noted, I think you have a fairly good idea of what is going on. Methinks the laddie doth protest too much. — T Clark

    :ok:
  • Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers
    Truth is not only stranger than fiction, it is more interesting. — William Randolph

    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken

    When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra. — Theodore Woodward

    Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. — William Of Ockham

    Time to drop the bombs,

    Certum est, quia impossibile. — Tertullian

    Credo quia absurdum. — Tertullian
  • Philosophy as 'therapy'.
    More precisely: philosophers contemplate how we ought not to think. — 180 Proof

    I want to disagree, I tried to disagree, but I can't help but agree! :up:
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    And isn’t the op about self reference paradoxes in particular? — Wayfarer

    Yes, it is.
  • What does hard determinism entail for ethics ?
    Xing — SolarWind

    Xing fu - was there the other day. The company was top notch - a judge, an environmental engineer, a surgeon, and two businessmen, and a lady with her baby - but the food could've been better although I quite liked the soup.
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    Yalbo's paradox is not reflexive. — Banno

    It seems it's not self-reference that leads to paradox. Something else is going on. — Banno

    Well remove the self-reference (reflexivity) and check if the paradox still exists

    1. That sentence is false (liar paradox).
    2. If that sentence is true then, Germany borders China. (Curry's paradox).

    Also, not all paradoxes are self-referential.
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    reflexivity — Wayfarer

    :up:

    Self-referential paradox: A person saying, "I don't exist."

    1. Reflexive (implicit) affirmation: To say "I don't exist", I must exist but this is unstated.

    2. Reflexive (explicit) negation: I don't exist.
  • What does hard determinism entail for ethics ?
    I don't think the test would work, because we don't know how effective free will is to counter recidivism. We could know that if we could observe some test subjects with free will and some without it. But in the actual world, either everyone has free will or no one has it. Alternatively, we could compare the frequency of recidivism between humans and dogs, but the two might be too different to compare haha.

    the existence of free will would add another "internal force" that can change our behavior.
    — Samuel Lacrampe
    I take back what I said. Free will is not another force that we add to sum up among the other inclinations. Rather, free will can always choose against all the inclinations, no matter their intensity. That's what makes it free.     — Samuel Lacrampe

    In my humble opinion, high recidivism rates would mean we have no control over our preferences (here desire to commit crimes) and that we can't, most importantly, resist/overcome them no matter what the consequences. Hence, I believe, the phenomenon. No?

    A low frequency of recidivism, on the other hand, would mean we can override our "programming."

    You make a good point though - we can't design an experiment with test and control subjects among humans. Nonetheless, we can compare humans with artificial entities, I'm referring to robots, that can't defy their nature (what they're instructed to do).
  • Philosophy as 'therapy'.
    Psychologists study how we think. Philosophers study how we ought to think.

    Psychology is about what turns us on and what turns us off, our fears, our hopes, the way we approach issues and how we react to them with the objective of coming up with some theory that explains the findings of surveys, experiments, analysis, and so on.

    Philosophy concerns itself with what should motivate/demotivate us, whether it's rational to fear, are our hopes realistic, is our approach to whatnot reasonable and what might count as an appropriate response?

    So, yeah, philosophy is therapeutic since it informs a person on how to deal with reality in the most rational way possible; philosophy, despite being speculative in some respects, ensures that we don't lose touch with reality, something the non compos mentis are awkward at.
  • Are there things we can’t describe with the English language?
    Lao Tzu - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

    Some guy - Hey, Lao Tzu, you're talking about something that can't be talked about. What's with that?

    Lao Tzu - Tao as a thing is entirely illusive and evasive. Evasive and illusive. In it there is image. Illusive and evasive. In it there is thinghood. Dark and dim.

    Some guy - This is such bullshit.

    Lao Tzu - Go fuck yourself.     — T Clark

    :lol:

    I reckon the grear Lao Tzu is referring to what I suppose is some kind of God-like entity or a Cosmic Principle that's behind all there is, every object, every phenomenon, basically everything, with the Tao.

    Lao Tzu then goes on to say that the Tao is nameless i.e. it can't be named which seemingly contradicts the fact that he calls/names it the Tao. Lao Tzu out of necessity must invent a word for that which he wishes to talk about even though no word is suited for the task. He picked "Tao" for some reason now lost to history.

    What's important to note here is Lao Tzu is employing apophasis to get us to realize what the Tao is. It's unnameable: Is it a stone? No? Is it a thought? No! Is it this (pointing to something)? No! Is it that (pointing to another thing)? No! No! No! No!...The bottom line is that the Tao is not anything that we know, that which we know always nameable.

    Apophasis, I'm told, is also a technique used in theism.

    Even the great buddhist master Nagarjuna adopts a similar attitude with Nagarjuna's tetralemma. The buddha precedes him but the teralemma, I believe, came into its own at the hands of the talented Nagarjuna.

    What's going on?
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    And what of Yalbo's paradox? No self-reference there. — Banno

    Not all paradoxes are self-referential is all I can say.
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    Hmm. A conditional is just shorthand for a conjunction: P⊃Q ≡ ~(P & ~Q) — Banno

    IF this sentence is true THEN, Germany borders China.[from Wikipedia]. This conditional is logically equivalent to (p -> q = ~p v q):

    This sentence is false OR Germany borders China.

    Now, "this sentence" doesn't seem to refer to "IF this sentence is true THEN, Germany borders China."

    Moreover, "this sentence is false" is the liar paradox sentence. Hmmmmm.... :chin: See :point: Self-reference Paradoxes

    What's happening? Any ideas?
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    SO the next step is to work out what else they have in common...? — Banno

    Oh! Well, if you want my opinion, I'd say that self-referential statements are prone to paradoxes because, it can be a part of itself (Curry's paradox is a case in point); reminds me of Russell's set that contains itself. When that happens, what's affirmed/denied of the part becomes affirmed/denied of the whole. That should lead to paradoxes, especially with conditional statements since by assuming the part we also assume the whole, the net effect of which is to generate a modus ponens syllogism.

    Too, there seems to be something odd about conditional statements because in one, if you notice, both the antecedent and the consequent are themselves statements and yet, we don't consider a conditional as a compound statement like we do a conjunction or a disjunction. I'm not sure how relevant this is though.
  • The Definition of Information
    If you read the OP, and watch the video, you will become acquainted with Systems Theory. It sounds complicated but is really quite simple. Order in the universe comes in the form of self organizing systems. It is the form of these systems that interact. A human being is a self organizing system.

    The channel that made the video, has many such simple videos on systems theory. Getting acquainted with it is well wort anybody's time, imo     — Pop

    :ok: Good day.
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    The point of bringing in CUrry's paradox was to counter Mad's suggestion that it was self-reference and negation that resulted in paradox. It isn't. — Banno

    I stand corrected! Thanks again.
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    ↪Banno The truth table doesn't match what's going on in Curry's paradox.
    — TheMadFool

    One way to think about it is, if P just is P⊃Q, then the only line in the truth table that is not a contradiction is line 1; if line 1 is true, anything follows from P.     — Banno

    Yes! Thanks for making me look up Curry's paradox. I had heard of it but never really took time out to study it until you brought it up. It seems Curry's paradox is connected to a lot many other ideas, especially in math.
  • Are there things we can’t describe with the English language?
    One issue I have with Wittgenstein's claim that meaning is use is that even definitions viewed in terms of essences is, after all, use of a word to stand for a certain idea or object. I don't recall anyone attempting to clarify how Wittgenstein's theory differs in a significant way from essence-based definitions which are, bottom line, also use.
    — TheMadFool

    I think of W as just one slap in the face among others, to wake foolosophers up from a dream. Some of his early metaphors still hold, IMO. The ladder is disposable. The evidence of something like understanding Wittgenstein is talking less silly talk. Definitions can still be useful, but they are taken far less seriously than a certain kind of philosopher might want to take them (as if they were formal definitions that might be used in a mathematical proof.). I think the big point is that meaning is out there with them not in here with me. No one cares about my 'definition' of [choose a sound-mark]. Why should they? I don't decide what 'justice' or 'knowledge' or 'science' means, though I can bark and squeak like the rest on such matters. Yeah, a few of us bark and squeak so well that others' barks and squeaks come to resemble our own stolen noises. But the main thing is to just look and listen at what's going on ('meaning is use' blah blah blah.)     — Zugzwang

    Wittgenstein, it seems, was especially affected by the word "game." He realized that, in truth, no one really knows how to define it but then everyone uses it and uses it correctly. It's actually a paradox very similar to St. Augustine's time paradox:

    What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. — St. Augustine (on time)
  • The Definition of Information
    Where have you defined, or even described what information is? As I have said previously, the minimum number of yes / no questions quantifies information. It does not tell us what information is.
    Information is not about quantity. Information becomes you!     — Pop

    Information is that which reduces uncertainty, quantified as the number of yes/no questions required to pare down the possibilities from (say) n to 1 which is equal to .

    This is Shannon's original paper. How did Shannon define information? “Shannon's theory defines information as a probability function with no dimension, no materiality, and no necessary connection with meaning" -Robert K. Logan. How you connect this with Skeptisism and Dogmatism leaves me speechless — Pop

    1. More technically, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty.

    2. Uncertainty refers to epistemic situations involving imperfect or unknown information.

    3. In Western philosophy the first philosopher to embrace uncertainty was Pyrrho resulting in the Hellenistic philosophies of Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism, the first schools of philosophical skepticism.     — Wikipedia

    According to this interesting paper, an early critic of Shannon's definition was Donald Mckay:
    "He suggested that information should be defined as “the change in a
    receiver’s mind-set, and thus with meaning” and not just the sender’s signal [6]. The notion of
    information independent of its meaning or context is like looking at a figure isolated from its ground.
    As the ground changes so too does the meaning of the figure.
    Shannon, whose position eventually prevailed, defined information in terms of the transmission of
    the signal and was not concerned with the meaning. The problem with MacKay’s definition was that
    meaning could not be measured or quantified and as a result the Shannon definition won out and
    changed the development of information science". People that shared MacKay’s position
    complained that Shannon’s definition of information did not fully describe communication. Shannon
    did not disagree–he “frequently cautioned that the theory was meant to apply only to certain technical
    situations, not to communication in general".     — Pop

    :ok: I'm with you on that. Shannon's definition of informatiom as resolution of uncertainty doesn't go into meaning, in that it's deficient. I wonder if Ludwig Wittgenstein's theory that meaning is use is relevant or not. If yes, then meaning can't be encoded in a message - the same message will mean different things to different people. For instance, the information that a mosque is being built in the locality will impact differently on christians, jews, moslems, atheists, racists, and so on. Perhaps Shannon intuited this and thus, avoided the mess that incorporating meaning into his definition of information would result in.

    This is why I have defined it as the evolutionary interaction of form. This definition fits information as implied in those four theories.

    In science information is distinction. Note distinction requires the interaction of two forms. One form distinct against the other. This is the fundamental relationship that is the basis of logic. That is the basis of our relational understanding. What is being informed is you.
    Life is a procession of such moments of distinction , and what you are is the accumulative sum of those moments.     — Pop

    Integrated Information Theory tells us that consciousness exists as moments of integrated information. Systems Theory tells us that interaction is information, and nothing exists outside of interaction. Enactivism tells us that we are enacted / interacted in the world informationally, and Constructivism tells us that it is a body of integrated information that becomes knowledge, in an evolving and idiosyncratic fashion and what we are is a product of this. All that is missing is a definition of this information, and I think this one fills the bill. — Pop

    I see. You're trying to make everybody happy by taking a syncretic stance - picking up all the essential elements of what information is in these four theories and bringing them under one banner (your definition of information).

    Could you expand and elaborate on your definition of information as an evolutionary interaction of form?

    1. What does "evolutionary" mean? At first I thought you meant biological evolution but that doesn't seem likely.

    2. What does "interaction" mean? What's interacting?

    3. What's "form"?

    Thanks.
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    There are many more unwanted pregnancies than can be explained by failure of contraception. Irresponsible, lazy, careless, idiotic, heartless men...and women!
  • Afghanistan, Islam and national success?
    Thank you, thank you. The answer to your question is yes. But until we share the same source of information I don't think anyone will believe me. At least over ten years of trying to convence people of the importance of education, have not gotten good results.

    My source of information is several books on the history of education. I am sure many people in the forum would love these books, but you will not find them in a regular book store. However these books can be found on line- Textbook in the History of Education by Paul Monroe 1910 and A History of Education by James Mulhern. Then I have old gradeschool text books and other books about education. Or we can come to the same information through an explanation of Liberal Education coming out of the Age of Reason and what scientific thinking has to do with what makes the West different from the East. A difference that was the foundation of war between the Greeks and Persians and has never been resolved. Your last statement is exactly right.     — Athena

    A recent historian of philosophy, Anthony Gottlieb, describes its (religion's) impact in terms of the tale of Sleeping Beauty. "Having pricked its finger on Christian theology, philosophy fell asleep for about a thousand years until awakened by the kiss of Descartes" — Anthony Kenny (An Illustrated Brief History Of Western Philosophy)

    I suppose we shoudn't be too hasty in our judgment of Islam, it's the youngest religion there is. If all goes well, Islam should produce its own Descartes who'll then give the kiss of life to the Islamic world. I won't live long enough to see that happening. :sad:
  • Is it wrong to have children?
    That's a really really interesting view. And it deserves another thread on its own. Big one.

    But I think at this one we examine the "basic theory of antinatalism" under "normal" circumstances. That is no starvation threat (for now) at least.
    I think we try to compare 2 different types of thinking .2 different "theories". And as to do that fairly, we should examine them under the exact same circumstances. If we want a fair outcome out of this discussion. Imo at least.

    But what you mentioned is really interesting and almost for sure a question that humanity will be forced to face in future.     — dimosthenis9

    You're right, fair play implies natalism and antinatalism have to be compared under the exact same conditions. Notice, however, that natalism leads to antinatalism via overpopulation and and vice versa when the tables are turned as happens with underpopulation. The world swings pendulously between these two extremes. The takeaway is that neither natalism nor antinatalism is good philosophy, they fail as a global reproductive policy.

    The solution: Control/regulate reproduction, strike a balance between too many births and too few births in order to maintain a steady, flat population curve. That way both natalists and antinatalists will have nothing to complain about as there's enough for everybody - happy, content lives are possible.
  • Does thinking take place in the human brain?
    You talk too much! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

    Yes, I've often been told that.
  • Afghanistan, Islam and national success?
    ↪Athena
    I don't know how to parse your recommendations. Some of them do sound like what a philosopher might say but I'm not certain whether it'll work or not. Are there any records of historical precedents? I mean that in the middle east and some mulsim southeast asian nations at least, rich philosophical traditions have been literally wiped off the face of the earth by Islam but the reverse has never happened. I'm doubtful that your well-meaning suggestions to improve the situation in Afghanistan will bear fruit.

    Morever, the crux of the problem is this: The Taliban is about Islam, not Afghanistan. The west, on other hand, despite the possibility that it's just lip service, want Afghans to think hard and feel deeply about Afghanistan. That's all I have to say.
  • Is it wrong to have children?
    Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species. — schopenhauer1

    For a true blue antinatalist you seem not so concerned. My point is that there are real, extremely urgent reasons to adopt a global antinatalist policy, either partially or in full. Time is running out for us - either we declare a moratorium on birthing or we all die of starvation, quite possibly some other complication of overpopulation will do us in.
  • WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
    It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or in general, any power higher than the second, into two like powers. I know why the universe is mathematical. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain. — Pierre de Fermat(ized) TheMadFool
  • The Decay of Science
    Well if science got us into it, it's only science than can get us out of it. Plus a major change in attitude. — Wayfarer

    To go to the devil to ask for help against the devil. — Reverend Samuel Parris (Salem Witch Trials)

    All good!
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    ↪Banno
    The truth table doesn't match what's going on in Curry's paradox.

    X = If this sentence is true, Japan is on the moon.

    Assume X is true; the antecedent is also true.

    Ergo, the antecedent is (assumed) true AND the conditional itself (X) is (assumed) true; Japan is on the moon follows.

    Self-reference but no negation and yet, a paradox.
  • Does thinking take place in the human brain?
    Well, you still didn't burst my bubble and it was still not hard! (Or maybe, did it turn as a boomerang against yourself? :smile:)

    For me, this is just a discussion, which, besides other things, makes me know you better! :smile:     — Alkis Piskas

    You contradict yourself, a telltale sign that it is beyond your ken. Don't worry, we're in the same boat. It's extremely difficult to break a habit that we've developed even before we could think properly i.e. from infancy and reinforced over a lifetime.

    A simple question should get the point across: Is depression really an illness? Is there joy enough in this world to be happy, let's even lower the bar, content or is it the other way round? Think about it. Either this shocks or it won't. If it does, I've done my job and if it doesn't then, too bad, you're like some of those folks who had only seen white swans in their life and come to the conclusion there are no black swans.
  • Self referencce paradoxes
    Curry's paradox does not require negation. — Banno

    Is it self-referential? Could you explain it to me, please?
  • Does thinking take place in the human brain?
    To trust them or not makes absolutely no sense. — Alkis Piskas

    That's why :point:

    I don't mean to burst your bubble and I know this is hard but [...] — TheMadFool
Home » TheMadFool