Christians before Christ — Wayfarer

:up: Fact is stranger than fiction.

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. — Mark Twain

One model I’m aware of is R M Bucke’s 1901 ‘Cosmic Consciousness’. In it, he says that those designated prophets or sages (he includes both Jesus and Buddha, but with many other examples) have realised a state of being which is as far beyond the normal human state, as the human state is beyond the comprehension of animals — Wayfarer

Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Does he both exist and not exist after death? Does he neither exist nor not exist after death?..." "If I thought so, I would say so...I don't say so...I don't say it is not." This is the fourth case. — Wikipedia

Nagarjuna's Tetralemma

Either something is or it is not.

1. It is. No!
2. It is not. No!
3. It is and it is not. No!
4. Neither it is nor it is not. No!

What is it?

:gasp:

Speaking for myself, if I were an old-school scientist - the kind who are hardcore physicalists - I'd be worried about Quantum Physics and how it seems susceptible to pseudoscientific interpretations as can be found in books like The Tao Of Physics by physicist Fritjof Capra and also in the numerous books authored by people of the same ilk as Deepak Chopra. Quantum physics seems to be asymptotically approaching what scientists have gone on record to decry as woo-woo viz. mysticism

Quantum Physics, if scientists aren't careful, will be the undoing of science. The decay has set in but can scientists do anything about this gangrenous limb that threatens to consume all of science itself? Time will tell.

As for the alleged cyclical nature of all phenomena, this: Mysticism/Religion (pre-Thales of Miletus) -> Science (Thales of Miletus) -> Mysticism/Religion (Quantum Physics). That's a long ass cycle.

What then does make Dumbo fly? — VincePee

Definitely NOT the magic feather.

For better or for worse, I might be one of those people who know what to think think but still doesn't. I don't know why that is.
— TheMadFool

Haha! You and me both. — Caldwell

:smile:

The answer to this seems to be that this pandemic isn’t really like the ones you mention and is more akin to the 1968 flu outbreak. No measures then of the sort we’ve seen this time around were implemented, presumably because they were seen as being out of proportion to the problem. People don’t like being confined to their homes or coerced into receiving medical treatments; so if the basis upon which these things are enforced seems questionable then it’s understandable if they become inclined to deny it fully. — AJJ

Quarantine Scroll down to History.

COVID-19 isn't the first pandemic the world has faced
— TheMadFool

(y) It seems though, that some don't learn from history.

There have been crazies all along for sure.
Some forms of vaccination were used a millennium ago in China, but it didn't really take off until much later, the 1800s then the 1900s in particular.
Religious and other anti-vaxxers have pretty much followed suit, as far as I can tell. — jorndoe

:up: It looks like every pandemic scenario spawns it own strain of nutcases who, forget about trying to solve the problem on hand, actually make the situation go from bad to worse by denying there's a problem to begin with. It's no secret that such people are a setback for the response to such catastrophes but, I'm curious, do they have some kind of beneficial effect? Politically say? I dunno.

What relevant events occurred between 1918 (influenza pandemic) and 2019 (COVID-19) that could explain it?
— TheMadFool

The era of mass media, News Limited, the internet and some big political scandals like Watergate. Crackpots, the paranoid and the haters have a ready source of community and information all around the world in ways inconceivable in 1919. — Tom Storm

Correct and I suppose people back then had more faith in their governments than now. You mentioned some high-profile scandals and, to my reckoning, enough of them have occurred in the two decades that have passed since 1918-1919 to make even the staunchest supporters of the state have second thoughts about how sincere the state is when it comes to the welfare of the people.

But what? Please copmplete your thought. I like to know your opinion. — Alkis Piskas

Just like Dumbo is certain that the magic feather makes him fly, we too are completely convinced that it's the brain that thinks. The feather isn't magical, it doesn't make Dumbo fly; likewise, it's possible that the brain doesn't think, we just believe it does.

BTW, in your first comment (which I quoted in my "collection" of responses) you stated "So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking." Are you revising or questioning your view? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I'm revising my position. Yes, when our brain is out of commission, we stop thinking - any boxer worth his salt will attest to that. However, the brain could be an illusion - remember that anything we perceive with our senses is, according to Cartesian skepticism, unreliable - and getting knocked out by a blow to the head quite possibly is part of the magic show. :chin:

Mmmh... Let's put it this way: For a given case, if recidivism happens, then deterrence and rehabilitation will not be effective, regardless if we have free will or not. Likewise, if recidivism does not happen, then deterrence and rehabilitation will be effective, regardless if we have free will or not. In short, free will does not change the effects of deterrence and rehabilitation.

That said, I agree that the existence of free will would add another "internal force" that can change our behavior — Samuel Lacrampe

My personal opinion is that if we have free will, rehabilitative and deterrent aspects of justice will work because a criminal has the ability to change his ways. There's no guarantee of course since a criminal's proclivities might get the better of faer; the conflict between a person's free will and faer nature not always resolving in favor of the former. Thus, yes, even if we did possess free will, recidivism won't just go away.

In the absence of free will, recidivism would be the norm; no criminal, no matter what rehabilitative/deterrent measures, would be able to resist faer tendency to commit crimes.

It appears then that we have a simple, albeit crude, way of testing for the existence of free will; we could look at the rates of recidivism. The higher the rates among known outlaws, the lower the probability of free will - basically recidivism is inversely proportional to the degree of freedom of will we possess.

What say you?

All that the claim "information is physical" means is that it's either matter or energy or both, in and of themselves, or changes in them. So, either information is matter (has mass & occupies space) or energy (can do work) or are changes in mass/volume/energy.
— TheMadFool

The relationship between symbolic meaning and form is one of the issues. That was discussed in the other thread 'what is information'. Remember the Norbert Weiner quote, 'information is information, not matter or energy'? Information can't be reduced to the laws of physics, simpliciter. It is one of the many nails in the coffin of physical reductionism.

Of course, in terms of IT, then information has a physical meaning, because it is stored physically, in the form of binary code. But the philosophical implication of what information is, is a different thing again. One of the papers Apokrisis referred me to, The Physics and Metaphysics of Biosemiotics by Howard Pattee, is very useful on that (although Pattee's material is a tough read.)

All signs, symbols, and codes, all languages including formal mathematics are embodied as material physical structures and therefore must obey all the inexorable laws of physics. At the same time, the symbol vehicles like the bases in DNA, voltages representing bits in a computer, the text on this page, and the neuron firings in the brain do not appear to be limited by, or clearly related to, the very laws they must obey. Even the mathematical symbols that express these inexorable physical laws seem to be entirely free of these same laws.
— Pattee

So, they operate on a different level to physical laws. The relationships expressed by basic logic, for example, operate completely independently of physical laws, even though you can devise physical systems to instantiate them.

Killer argument for dualism, in my view. — Wayfarer

I'm inclined to agree with what you said if only because the same symbol e.g. C can represent the chemical carbon, a test grade, the first note in an octave without undergoing any physical transformation which, to me, should be impossible if information is physical. Reminds me of Wittgenstein's claim, meaning (information) is use. @Banno.

Your view of the real-ideal pair is in line with how things are done.
— TheMadFool

A perception like this, nowadays, is the virtue of the insane... — Gus Lamarch

You disapprove. Why? What I said is congruent to what you've been saying, no? As an example, look at how civil engineers (I just met one outside my office) have a conception of an ideal house - structurally sound, oriented in a way that optimizes natural sunlight, prevailing winds, is aesthetic, and so on - and they use this model/ideal house as a template for all houses they help to design/build. In short, the ideal serves as a direction-finding beacon that guides civil engineers towards the best possible approximation of the perfect house and what comes out of all this is the real house.

@Alkis Piskas

If someone breaks your arm/leg with a club, you can still think but if the club makes contact with your head (brain) with sufficient force, your thinking stops. So, I guess, the brain inside our skulls does the thinking. — TheMadFool

Dumbo thinks it's the feather that makes him fly but no, it isn't. Likewise, we think it's the brain that thinks but...

What I find both interesting and lamentable is that COVID-19 isn't the first pandemic the world has faced - there was the black death, cholera, and the influenza pandemic to name a few - and I never heard of any pandemic-deniers during those global catastrophes. This is a novel phenomenon. What relevant events occurred between 1918 (influenza pandemic) and 2019 (COVID-19) that could explain it?

I never said Jesus was not a Jew — Tzeentch

Ok, I'll accept that you didn't say that but just imagine how pretty it would've been in if the founder of Judaism, Moses, were a Hindu, the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha, were a Jew, the founder of Christianity, Jesus were a buddhist, and, last but not the least, the founder of Islam, Mohammad, were a christian. All our problems would be solved - all religions would simply be a chain of revelations cum philosophy.

Being from Colorado, a common carving on bathrooms walls: "Here I sit, buns a flexin'; givin' birth to another Texan." — James Riley

:lol:

Matriarchy-Patriarchy In The Animal Kingdom (BBC)

New research has found that of the more than 5,000 known species of mammals, just a handful are led by females. — From the above article

Some of the "...handful..." are hyenas, elephants, and bonobos.

Anyway, mother nature is the wisest of us all; 3 billion years of perfecting every single organism, solitary and social, must mean something, right? She, sorry girls, prefers patriarchy and we all know better than to mess with mother nature.

Fuck Texas, and fuck the Supreme Court. — James Riley

Yeah! Fuck 'em all. The problem - Texas and the idiots in the Supreme Court migh just give birth to more Texas and more idiots at the Supreme Court! :scream: Let's not fuck anyone for the moment! :lol:

Mullah Omar has a point though, no? People are willing to spend so much on statues but only paltry amounts on actual people (men, women, and children).
— TheMadFool

Personally, I am in favor of saving the statues for everyone. We have not had the ability to feed everyone and even if they did, they would multiply and the problem would get worse. However, we can feed everyone's spiritual well being and destroying cathedrals, mosques and Buddist statues is wrong. Those who destroyed the Buddist statues would know that if it were a mosque being destroyed. — Athena

I hear ya. Nevertheless, one of humanity's biggest problems is not getting our priorities right. For instance, save for a few enlightened countries, the defense budget outstrips the health budget which to me is taking the stand that we would rather die of disease than die from an enemy's bullet. It seems to make sense at some level but that's precisely the point - we, some of us at least, are facing so much pressure that we have to resort to this kinda warped logic.

And why do you think I would want your references? — Mark Nyquist

I don't have an appropriate response to that.

↪TheMadFool You've proven nothing but demonstrated how brains can support strange ideas. You have a brain that functions. What you call mind is the normal functioning of your brain. You and Bartricks are mezmerized by the word mind. No physical matter? Get real. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Certain: mind; Uncertain: matter & energy
— TheMadFool

You know when you comment you self document your own ineptitude. It's just ridiculous.
And how did you and Bartricks get sucked into Bishop Berkeley's world of ass-backwardism? Maybe that was your wrong turn. — Mark Nyquist

Perhaps you'll feel more comfortable with the physicalist version of the skepticism advocated by René Descartes :point: Gilbert Harman's brain in a vat.

Remember, you're getting closer to the truth - you've taken the physical world save your brain out of the equation. Take one step more and you're in Cartesian wonderland. Good luck!

The history of Immanuel - The Königsberg Clock - Kant’s life is difficult to describe. For he neither had a life nor a history. He lived a mechanically ordered, almost abstract, bachelor life in a quiet out-of-the-way lane in Königsberg, an old city at the northeast border of Germany. I do not believe that the large clock of the Cathedral there completed its task with less passion and less regularity than its fellow citizen Immanuel Kant. Getting up, drinking coffee, writing, giving lectures, eating, taking a walk, everything had its set time, and the neighbors knew precisely that the time was 3:30 P.M. when Kant stepped outside his door with his gray coat and the Spanish stick in his hand. — Heinrich Heine

I feel it's a case of poor memory and the Buddha's spotless image as a preeminent sage. Someone who recalls a quote but not the person to whom the quote belongs to will try faer best to remember who spoke/wrote those words. As must be the usual, the first wise person that comes to mind is, well, the Buddha.

This phenomenon occurs with significant frequency in other areas. For example, if you're the only member in the family fond of cake and it so happens that, say, your mother discovers the cake she left on the table is gone, you are the prime suspect. Your reputation as a cake-lover will automatically lead people to associate missing cakes with you.

Not the first, obviously, but still interesting...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jantar_Mantar,_Jaipur — unenlightened

:up: An eye opener for me.

Now that I think of it, what about the earth, the moon, and the sun itself viewed as one giant timepiece?
— TheMadFool

Nice idea. It always gives you the right time when we look at it from far away. Maybe we should gauge all atomic hours wrt to that giant clock.

I have heard about waterclocks in ancient Greece. — VincePee

What puzzles me is that cycles, the very essence of time keeping, is ubiquitous at atomic, planetary, solar system, and galactic scales but there's no evidence of the universe itself being cyclical in some way or another; au contraire, the universe seems to be literally exploding, with "pieces" (galaxies) flying away from the "center" in every conceivable direction. What's up with that? Just a thought.

it is lost. — TheICC

Then, @Wayfarer, information is neither matter nor energy (re: conservation laws) and so is nonphysical.

Time has been mechanized already by sundials. These nails and chains that are banged in and put around time have been increasingly refined to accumulate in the advent of the atomic clock. So-called Natural units were even invented. Without mechanized time the world would have looked very different. Maybe we have some kind of marshmallow minds. Maybe we could better wear aikhornnuts on our wrists as Krznaric puts it.

When were the first mechanized timekeepers used in science? Was Galileo the first one? Did this use further science a lot? So newer means and more precise keepers could be constructed? — VincePee

Now that I think of it, what about the earth, the moon, and the sun itself viewed as one giant timepiece? It's mechanical alright and measures time accurately enough. The first organisms to use this colossal chronometer were those who optimized their biology to the light and dark of days, the warmth and cold of seasons. :chin:

del

I have a feeling that the sentence "nonexistence exists" is not well-formed.

Nonexistence exists = Nonexistence is a thing AND that thing exists.

What kinda thing is nonexistence? I know of only two planes/worlds a thing can be of:

1. The mental world: The world of ideas. Nonexistence is an idea and in that sense, nonexistence, the notion, exists. Ideas are things.

2. The physical world: The world of objects that our bodies can bump into. Nonexistence is not a physical object like a stone or an elephant. Ergo, nonexistence doesn't exist in the physical plane. Physical objects are things.

The follow-up question: What does nonexistence mean/refer to?

It means/refers to,

3. The state of not being part of the mental world. Nonexistence is about non-things.

OR/AND

4. The state of not being part of the physical world. Nonexistence is about non-things.

Thus, to say "nonexistence exists" is to claim that nonexistence refers to a thing (mental/physical or both) which is a category error; there's no point discussing the alleged contradiction.

I'm sure it had something to do with accuracy and standardization - nonmechanical clocks were too unreliable and the units varied from region to region. Not completely sure.

Wittgenstein's law: It doesn't take long before any discussion on language in philosophy begins to turn into a discussion on Wittgenstein.
— TheMadFool
That's true in anglophone settings. Beyond that, nobody cares about him — Olivier5

Oh! Updating my files! Gracias!

It's partially use, partially not. — Arcturus

Madhyamaka or not quite. I think Banno will have a good laugh. Playing with yourself, are you?

Wittgenstein's law: It doesn't take long before any discussion on language in philosophy begins to turn into a discussion on Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Not sure if this is original , I had the idea of what i call "Positive Machiavelli" , I Matt state that " The ends justify the means. But you don't use it to throw people under the bus or to gain power, you use it to gain love. Sometimes money is power, but not all the time." Are their any loopholes in this same pattern of thinking? — FarEastNationThinker65

Haven't you contradicted yourself there? That the ends justify the means implies you can throw people under the bus to gain "love." Some would say that either you don't understand what love means or you don't have any idea what throwing people under the bus is.

To use, you already have to know what stuff means. (and stuff 'means' on all sorts of levels) So meaning can't simply be use. — Arcturus

Yes.

Good advice. I'll write it on my wall. For when I wake up. — VincePee

:lol:



Go to sleep!

TheMadFool
That you think you are is not the same as you are.
— TheMadFool

I have to think about this one... — VincePee

Don't waste your time...

I think I'm a few pages ahead... — VincePee

That you think you are is not the same as you are.

P-sha, I get instantly offended by logging on to the forum. :party: — Noble Dust

:ok: