N = The number of times a similar situation was the case (before)

n = The number of times war broke out

P(W) = the probability of a Sino-US all out war

$P(W) = \frac{n}{N}$

It seems I'm an insurance agent! :lol:

Ah. Eating well and exercising regularly. These are an issue of ethics?

Why ought one do so? — Banno

Yes. As you care for, broadly speaking, the health of others, you should do for yourself too. Is there anything wrong with that? :chin:

And if you are alone, what is it to flourish?

Give an example. — Banno

Taking care of oneself.

@DingoJones

It's odd that this point should be contentious.

The things you choose to do that do not involve others are simply a question of your preference. Do as you choose. The things you choose to do that do involve others are of a different kind. It is these considerations that are the topic of ethics. — Banno

I'm not saying there's no difference in the way you treat others and the way you treat yourself - the latter is characterized by more freedom i.e. you have more options compared to the former.

However, as a person, as per philosophy itself, our mission is to attain eudaimonia (flourishing); this is, in a sense, a duty to yourself. Given this, someone may perform/fail to perform this duty and that's, ethically, being moral/immoral to yourself. Ethics applies even to the last man on earth.

Well Banno’s point was that morality is about relations between life, precluding the logic you used there. — DingoJones

Reflexive relations!

Oh you're not agreeing with me. Maybe you disagree. That's fine. But I have the microphone, so... — Matt Scannell, Vertical Horizon, Southington CT

:rofl: :up:

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to? — DingoJones

Ethics is fundamentally about how one relates to others. — Banno

Morality is about life. A single individual is alive. Ergo, even a loner has to have morals.

The problem with naive realism doesn't apply as long as we talk about tables and chairs (except for the rare cases of optical, auditory and other illusions).

The problem is thst a naive realist takes for granted that the same that goes for observing tables and chairs also goes for humans, for moral/ethical issues. To a naive realist, a sentence like
This chair has four legs
is epistemically the same as
Women are essentially inferior to men
or
Henry is an evil person.
or
Witches should be burnt at the stakes.

A naive realist talks about moral issues with the same certainty as he talks about tables and chairs. Do you see any problem with that? — baker

$\uparrow$ is extremely important.

There's a lie-truth-belief asymmetry.

Suppose there are 3 people X, Y, and Z

1. If X tells the truth, I'd be a fool to assume Y and Z too will tell the truth.

However,

2. If X lies, I'd be a fool not to assume Y and Z too will lie.

Truth-telling is not treated as contagious but lying is. :chin:

No matter! :joke:

Emoji fest!

you are trying to solicit answers to the tune of "likely" "most likely" "not a chance" "a small chance". — Caldwell

How do you tell the difference between these fascinating words?

You're still not getting my point. — Caldwell

:rofl:

I'm just all stoked by the fact that the present migration patterns more or less match the prehistoric migration patterns taken by our human ancestors. See :point: Out Of Africa Hypothesis! What an amazing coincidence!

Incorrect. The OP or anyone can say that in normal speak, and not wanting to get the numbers. I'd say review Wittgenstein's ordinary language. We can move out of formal definitions. — Caldwell

Wittgenstein? Now what are the odds?

I know.

We have all the time in the world - Louis Armstrong (James Bond, No Time To Die)

On second thought, there was a time when God tried to wipe us off the face of the earth — Athena

I Noah guy who had information on that! :wink:

And by backing up your answer with numbers it makes it more believable or true? — Caldwell

I would hope so!

This is a matter of political, historical, and social events. If you couldn't be bothered to read history, and just use numbers to gain credibility, I couldn't be bothered either. — Caldwell

"What are the odds?" is clearly a mathematical question and I've given some hints on how we might be able to actually get our hands on a number to anyone who has the information.

I am glad that I don't have to do any exams. They really could go either way. I particularly hated multiple choices and preferred essays because it allowed for more fuzzy logic — Jack Cummins

Indeed, indeed! I used to cram for my exams listening to death metal music at full volume!

When we destroy something, anything, we create a mess. We can clean up the mess and create something with it. I think this is just a very ancient way of looking at recycling!

Brahma the creator & Shiva the destroyer work in tandem to quite literally recycle not just your garbage but the whole f**kin' universe! Vishnu, the preserver, just prolongs the inevitable.

It may go either way — Jack Cummins

QUIET PLEASE!
EXAM IN PROGRESS!

To tell you frankly, I don't see a problem with physics. What's the difference between a stone and the effects of a stone? They're, in my book, the same thing.

However, I concede that, given the possibility that there could be more senses than the traditional five we're endued with, our picture of what a stone is maybe incomplete. A stone could be so much more than coldness, hardness, heaviness, and so on. In this then what a stone is to us is subjective - we only perceive those properties of a stone we can. What is it like to be a bat?

:grin:

There are religions that describe gods creating the world so that they would have someone to play with. I remember Wayfarer writing about it. — T Clark

I'll wait for Wayfarer to edify me.

Russell’s stone — NOS4A2

:chin: What that?

Suppose God exists. You ask him "why God did you make the world as it is?" He responds "I was just playing."

What's going to be your reaction? [Choices not restricted to one emoji]

1. :rofl:

2. :angry:

3. :cry:

4. :meh:

5. :gasp:

6. :worry:

7. :chin:

8. :brow:

9. :confused:

10. :pray:

11. :roll:

The OP's a mathematical question about odds/chances/probability of in general hot wars and in particular a sino-US military engagement. I know basic probability but to give a good answer is beyond my ken. Where do I even begin? Perhaps experimental probability is the way to go - how many times in the past has a similar situation been true of the world and ended in bellum? Do we have the data? I'm surprised at the answers though - people seem surprisingly confident of their answers despite the fact that no one posted a figure/number and showed their work.

This doesn't in any way imply 'infallible' knowing or perceiving – that we cannot be mistaken. You're only a "moron", Fool, to the degree you "take things at face value" when, in fact, there a grounds to do otherwise — 180 Proof

:up: for the qualification!

But yeah, as I understand things, existence is wholly immanent (Spinoza et al), and that any purported "non-immanent, hidden reality" (e.g. occult mysteries, higher realms, astral planes, etc) is escapist make-believe at best. — 180 Proof

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. — Roger Verbal Kint aka Keyser Söze (The Usual Suspects)

Doesn't do anything for you? :chin:

Naive realism — Ciceronianus

There's not much of a difference, is there?, between naïve and foolish (ignorant and/or illogical).

Cartesian systematic doubt (Deus deceptor) & Harman's brain in a vat skeptical scenario (Evil genius) come to mind and given these rather disconcerting possibilities can't be ruled out with certainty, realism needs to be adjusted accordingly and what we leave behind is naïve realism and what get are fancier versions of realism.

I suppose it's only morons that take things at face value. @180 Proof claims that there's no hidden reality and WYSIWYG! It's like a dog/cat, upon seeing itself in the mirror, looking behind the mirror to check - there's nothing there. Is that good or bad?, you decide.

Do you think that there could be such a thing as "transformative knowledge?" They talk about the "Copernican Revolution" which marks the paradigm shift to a heliocentric understanding. To me, that seems like an example where expertise, as you call it, begins to alter the basic nature of our understanding, via the relationship between the individual thinker and the universe. — Pantagruel

Why not? It doesn't seem like we can craft a reductio ad absurdum from such an assumption. I suppose you're referring to paradigm shifts and I see one on the horizon but not in my lifetime though. I don't know whether I should laugh or cry. I'll do both to cover all the bases :grin: :cry:

Coming to the so-called revolutions, allegedly there were 3:

1. Copernican revolution [earth was demoted to a planet]

2. Darwinian revolution [humans were demoted to apes]

3. I can't, for the life of me, remember

These revolutions seem to be carefully orchestrated by Sophia (goddess of wisdom) to knock humans down from the pedestal to which we had, in our hubristic inanity, raised ourselves to. If this is going to be the trend, I shudder to think what another revolution will bring - are we, perchance, demons?, is earth actually hell? :fear:

A wise man knows when to stop. It's high time we stop this, what is an, investigation. Believe me, we don't wanna do this.

A. Suicide/Murder

1. Killing a human is wrong.

2. Killing yourself is killing a human being.

Ergo,

3. Suicide is wrong

B. Rights/Suicide

1. I have full rights over my life.

2. If I have full rights over my life, I'm free to end my life as and when I please and I wouldn't be wrong.

Ergo,

3. I'm free to end my life as and when I please and I wouldn't be wrong. [Suicide isn't wrong]

C. The Nedlog rule

1. Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you [the golden rule]

2. Do unto yourself as you would like yourself to do unto others [the nedlog rule] A suicider wouldn't want to kill others; he is, therefore, obligated not to hurt himself. [Suicide is wrong]

Is the mind in what is understood, or in the way in which it understands? — Pantagruel

I believe the two inform each other and what we get is a synergy between them: what I understand boosts the way I understand and vice versa and if we persist in our efforts, as some have, to expand our knowledge & hone our own unique approach to knowledge, great things are in store for us.

Aristotle and his coevals were doing pioneering work on philosophy - they were the first, literally, philosophers/psychologists/scientists/etc. They didn't have the benefit of libraries of books and tenured professors on the subjects that interested them. Just imagine a modern person with basic education (language + math) being told to figure out all of mathematics from scratch! A ludicrous proposal you might say but that's exactly what some people did, are doing, will do.

Compare the above to expertise - advanced knowledge on particular subjects - and we soon realize that this category of folk are simply memorizing stuff and regurgutating it at appropriate times. Learning things by heart is not easy of course but compared to being asked to found a new discipline, it's a walk in the park. Yes, originality is still a requirement but the more one-of-a-kind a person's ideas are, the more ostracism such a person will experience - every expert is kept on tight leash by his peers.

I feel uncomfortable having to make a choice between "what is understood" and "the way in which it is understood" because they go hand in hand in all branches of knowledge but if I were forced to pick one, I'd go with "the way in which it is understood". What can I do? I'm a bit (too) free-spirited for my own good. :grin:

logic and emotion — Jack Cummins

effects — Jack Cummins

emotional aspects as a motivating factor — Jack Cummins

empathy or compassion — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure how this works but passion provides the drive to study/practice reason and while reason's preliminary findings suggest that passion is a hindrance, deeper analysis shows that passion can be, if managed well, a powerful ally.

Like I said elsewhere in another thread, there's a pain-joy asymmetry in morality; morality is, on the whole, negative utilitarian i.e. though happiness is important, suffering has more weightage. Misery is like a pounding migraine attack and until it's treated, doing anything else is simply out of the question.

Why does this matter?

Pain is extremely dangerous: When in pain, you can't think well (you become illogical); when you can't think well, you make (silly) mistakes; when you make (silly) mistakes, you worsen the pain...so on and so forth - a closed positive feedback loop that'll spiral out of control so fast that you wouldn't even know what hit you.

There's something illogical about morality.

When you're in a bad situation, there's no time to think (James Riley: leisure and morality); all you can manage is reflexively react, a well-considered response a distant, tempting but unreal mirage.

Suffering benumbs the mind, induces a state of torpor that utterly demotivates a person. So yeah, emotion is not always good for logic or you. At best, it's a necessary evil and at worst, it's holding us at ransom.

Compassion & empathy are emotional concepts that align with my thoughts that there's something illogical about morality. These concepts are meaningless in the absence of pain and, as I explained above, pain is at the heart of morality and where there's pain, there's no logic.

You discount the fact that randomness has had a much longer time (four billion years on this planet) to effect change than man has had with his intelligence, which is roughly 100000 years to a million years maximum. This is a ratio of roughly 400,000 to 1.

Now conceptualize that theism is NOT false. In that case it must be true that God had an infinity to think about, plan, and conceptualize actions to come up with creation before he started the project. In this case God with his infinite wisdom compares to randomness rather poorly as an achiever. — god must be atheist

Hadn't though of it that way. :up:

The word "this" is not a self-referencing word, is it? Typically, it's used to denote spatial proximity. in contrast to the word "that" which expresses spatial remoteness. Good enough for government work; after all "this" is closer than "that" - closer to the self.

Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" was intended to be an irrefutable argument from undeniable premises. Descartes could not doubt the fact that he thought. [...] The reason is that Descartes' act of doubting itself requires thinking [...]. Basically, Descartes' famous dictum is shorthand for something more like: I am thinking this thought, and this I cannot doubt because my doubting requires my thought

:up:

Update

11% is the more than enough: Save the girl.

Very close in context of nature. — boagie

Major O'Hara: Let’s just say our goals are temporarily aligned.

Baroness: Just for tonight.

That may well be but in the process, you are engaging others in mutual caring, of which is vital in forming a community. No identification, no compassion, no community. The individual is stronger in a community than in the wilderness. Think community and collective organism. — boagie

Homo homini lupus.

That a private language is impossible (incoherent) means that some areas of our experience are not language-apt i.e. we can't talk about them neither to others nor to ourselves.

Let's take a familiar example - pain. As far as I can tell, we can talk about what pain is (public because there are observable physical correlates) but we can't seem to have a conversation on what pain is like (exclusively private).

It's ok. Thanks.

@TiredThinker

Surely its value is mostly in the experience of life and not the relative span of time?
— TiredThinker
I agree. Re:Value. — 180 Proof

Insofar as the current model of life - the theory of evolution - is concerned, all that matters is:
Birth $\rightarrow$ Childhood $\rightarrow$ Adulthood $\rightarrow$ Mate $\rightarrow$ Death.

All the above are achieved by the following:

1. Mayflies [lifespan 24 hours]

2. Humans [lifespan 90 years]

3. Greenland sharks [lifespan 270 years]

How should I correct my post?