Yes, you are correct — javi2541997

:lol:

Neurath's Boat — 180 Proof

Repair/improve your boat as you sail her. :up: On the fly!

Dogmatists just won't give up will they?

simplicity — javi2541997

It isn't simple is it now?



Unless you make sense, nobody's gonna listen to you! There's a workaround for that though - money, power, fame (the unholy trinity) can be used to bend & break rules any which way you please.

Indoctrination differs from education; the former doesn't have to be reasonable, the latter hasta be, oui?

Coming back to Jungian archetypes, what are they? It suggests what in my book are Platonic forms of minds with typical sets of ideas, attitudes, approaches, values, and so on. Am I correct?

To my reckoning forced to be immoral is a contradictio in terminis. Coercion negates free will and where there is no freedom, there can be no morality.

Even so, we could bemoan such circumstances - it's stressful to say the least. Any system that puts people in such dilemmas needs to be put under the microscope because the problem won't go away by itself. @schopenhauer1 might have a thing or two to say about this from an antinatalist point of view: being forced to play the game of life full of dilemmas/trilemmas/n-lemmas like the one the OP is in is immoral and I'm being as positive as possible when I say that.

The monolith is a simple 3D geometric shape; somehow reminds me of Plato's forms. It's tall, compared to the pre-sapiens and so symbolizes superiority. The dimensions hopefully are in the golden ratio 1.618... (proportio divina).

merci. I'd vote for black mold over Lindsey Graham but that's me. — Benkei

:up: & :rofl:

Maybe we should do a more detailed study of Kubrick's monolith vis-à-vis Jungian archetypes.

Shape: Rectangular prism (cell phoneish)
Color: Black (absorbs all colors, the "color" of (Jungian) shadows)
Dimensions: Unknown (mathemtical code? proportio divina 1.618...)
Surface: Looks smooth
Function: Jump-start cognitive revolutions (very Promethean, fire)

As @javi2541997 pointed out, the monolith appears to be rather simple, but given what it does, it must be functionally quite complex.

IUD — Benkei

Intrauterine device (contraceptive, used to contain copper which is allegedly spermicidal).

Yes! :smile: — javi2541997

Have you heard of Boltzmann brains? It's supposedly far more likely that the monolith simply assembled itself from nearby matter & energy and did its thing than that it were constructed and placed at the watering hole by a super-advanced alien civilization? Interesting, oui?

I think it is harder to believe when it appears in a human form. — javi2541997

Indeed, hence God/alien!

No one seen before and so enigmatic and original. Sometimes simplicity makes the best impact. Now that I am deeply concerned about the archetype of the monolith... Most of the devices look like it. If you look at a cellphone closely you would see a lot similarities with a monolith. — javi2541997

Apophenia/Pareidolia? Still, not bad, not bad at all! The cell phone does look like that monolith.

Your example is a case of inverse consequences. You want to achieve X. You have a plan P. When you implement the plan P, the result is ~X (the exact opposite). This is what to you is irony - a mismatch of expectations and actual outcomes.

There's also perverse consequences to watch out for - the solution aggravates the problem further (from the frying pan into the fire).

Anyway these specific instances of irony are only an aspect of the the problem which is simply that the world is upside down. You see $\uparrow$, but study it carefully and it's actually $\downarrow$, vice versa. We're in trouble, deep trouble!

Well, true, to thrill an audience is to present them either something brand new or simply offer a perspective they hadn't encounterd. So, god/alien in human form was on old trope (Jesus/Klaatu) and that might mean a box office bomb. Why not a black, 10 ft. tall cuboid? Now, that's something no one's seen before; it'll sell, oui mon ami?

The question reminds me of predator-prey eye positions. Prey have eyes on the sides of their head, giving them a 360^o field of vision in order to detect approaching predators. Predators, on the other hand, have front-facing eyes for stereoscopic/binocular vision so that they can judge distance accurately during a hunt. Predators can't see behind; prey can and still they get caught. Oh bummer!

I see that you're utilizing your BothAnd concept to full effect! Bravo!

Why did God, He would be the most advanced alien we could hope to encounter, take a human form, as Jesus? My compass tells me we're in alien gods territory.

True, true. religion imposes a moral standard on every activity we undertake. In religion's eyes there are only 2 categories, to wit good and bad. Everything then becomes permitted or forbidden. It's with the latter we have issues with because there are many projects that have been put on hold, despite how immensely beneficial they can be to humanity, for religious/ethical reasons. It's just a repeat of an old story we're familiar with. An example to refresh your memory is the long battle against geocentrism kicked off by Copernicus. Religion retards scientific progress is the takeaway here.

That said, we must consider the cost of progress, the toll it exacts on our psyche. Is anything permissible in the name of scientific advancement? Scientia non olet?

measurement — noAxioms

All sensations are actually measurements:

1 Color: Wavelength/frequency
2. Sound: Ditto
3. Touch/pain: Pressure, Temperature
4. Taste: Chemical composition & concentration
5. Smell: Ditto

Food for thought: We experience numbers as sensations (re ideaesthesia)

Well, Yaheweh manifested in the world, presented himself to us, as a man, Jesus, son of a humble carpenter's wife's son. Stone age folks had better imagination than Stanley Kubrick - the more relatable a form aliens assume, the easier it is to deliver the message (supposing there is one). Remember Klaatu -human(oid) - from The Day the Earth Stood Still? Is a rectangular, black, 10 feet tall monilith in any way something that would be familiar to pre-sapiens? Very unllikely, and to that extent it's a bad idea.

:grin:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

True, burial is a rather unnatural thing to do with a corpse. I haven't seen anything like it in other animals, not even in our closest cousins, chimps and bonobos. What usually happens is the cadaver is abandoned, left out in the open, for scavengers and predators to feed upon; after that what remains is for maggots & bacteria; the process of decay ends when nothing is left except for a few scattered bones.

Burials probably began when hominids transitioned from a nomadic way of life to settlements of some kind, from caves on to larger and larger communities. Corpses are, first, rather unpleasant objects to have around ones' dwelling (putrefaction is rather revolting); add to that the scavengers (some pretty large ones) and predators that are attracted by the smell (its intriguing, oui, that one death can lead to many more in this manner). Cremation was an option, but firewood must've been too precious to waste on anything other than protection/lighting/cooking.

:snicker:

On a more serious note, if I feel like I'm a proboscis monkey (Rastapopoulos), does that mean I am a proboscis monkey? I am according to transgender logic.

To hazard a guess I'd say gender dysphoria is basically an embryological relic - from the zygote to a certain point in the fetus' development, we can't tell the difference between male & female, morphologically speaking that is (DNA-wise we can). Imagine now that the fetus in those early stages were conscious and had eyes. If it looked in the mirror, it wouldn't be able to say whether it's a boy or a girl. A wild theory pops into view - maybe fetuses are conscious much, much, earlier than we believe (post-nervous system development) they are and there's a tiny mirror inside the womb and of course there has to be some light! :grin:

@Gnomon might wanna chime in with his BothAnd idea. Differences are not a bug that we must lament but a feature that we should celebrate. It's either that or The Borg! :snicker:

What is democracy?

Giving everyone a say in government - all are monarchs in their own little one-yea/nay-vote way. It's as if the crown were dismantled into thousands of pieces and distributed among the citizenry. We wouldn't have done that if we didn't (mis/dis)trust each other. The process seems reversible, oui monsieur?

I fear I might've missed the point.

Not "funny", just absurd. :death: — 180 Proof

The difference being ... ?

Paradoxical laughter, a condition seen in some psychoses - it ain't funny and that's why it is? :chin:

Paradoxical crying, you see this in beauty pageants & Heraclitus' was known as the weeping philosopher - it ain't sad and that's why it is? :chin:

We can know a fact i.e. facts are truths, known/unknown, but knowledge is known truths. Facts are independent of intelligence (knower unnecessary) while knowledge requires an intelligence (knower necessary). It's kinda like the object-image distinction in optics - the former exists independently of any lens/mirror but for the latter a lens/mirror is a must.

Fab! An intriguing business model - base your company on nature's surplus (there surely are/were more trees than necessary for a healthy ecosystem; the same for other living resources).

Eudaimonia (live well) is then nothing but building a life around the excess in nature - instead of harming then you benefit (aurea mediocritas). A win-win situation if you ask me. The current approach is basically barbarism - pillaging/looting/plundering and isn't sustainable beyond a certain point.

By the way I feel this was exactly what was happening up until the mid-1990s. From then on the biota has been in continuous decline with some confirmed extinctions.

Time

1. There was a flower, now in its place a fruit, then the fruit ripens (it can be eaten). There's progression of states (the plant hasn't moved) i.e. it's not a space thing; we need another dimension, let's call it time.

2. A and B both went from their settlement to the neighboring village. A got there before B; an order (1^st & 2^nd) but they both travelled the same distance; the sequence must be in a nonspatial dimension, time

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

To say "Language is no good" is gibberish as language has, by that statement, been blackballed by the skeptic (sawing off branches one sits on, suicide) and so is unavailable to him.

On the flip-side, I really can't say "Language is good" because that would be a circulus in probando.

So the choices are:

1. Self-refutation (unacceptable)

OR

2. Circularity (unacceptable)

It's a dilemma! :snicker:

:zip:

From an intelligent design, à la William Paley's clock, perspective what can something do that nothing can't? From all the data we've collected, from the oceanic depths to the stars above, what does it look like the universe is created for? Does this telos, whatever it is, necessitate a something, is this telos impossible with nothing?

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. — Carl Sagan

Maybe God just wants apple pie! :snicker:

Perhaps the telos of the universe isn't inferrable from the current stage it's in; could it be that there is evidence in re that, but we haven't found it yet?

In one video the late Randi makes an interesting remark. He says that one self-proclaimed psychic's hit rates were no better than chance. To llustrate, given an MCQ with 4 options and 1 correct answer, self-styled psychics get it right 25% of the time i.e. it's no better than your average person's wild guess. So much for the paranormal.

A question

A natural question given the above statistical/probabilistic framing of psychics and their powers is why nobody's concerned about success rates < 25%?. This is also, a mathematician might say, statistically significant. As per probability, guessing should get you to around 25% on an MCQ exam where each question has 4 options and 1 correct among them. However, some results (in MCQ exams) are much, much, lower than that. One who consistently gets less than 25% in MCQs with this format is (also) breaking the laws of chance, oui monsieur? What gives?

When there's disagreement, it's best to err on the side of caution. A simple example should get the point across. If you're unsure whether the rustling in the bushes behind you is a tiger or a bunny, it's best to assume you're outta luck. False positive errors tend to be, by and large, felix culpae. The same applies to the abortion debate vis-à-vis humanness - we should go with the fetus is a human rather than not as the worst-case scenario is when you say it isn't while it actually is.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynman

While Feynman's comment suggests any theory/idea based on Quantum Mechanics is a case of obscurum per obscuris, I find it quite fascinating that anyone would lay a foundation of ignorance for their knowledge claims.

The issue boils down to a simple fact: people want tools that can enhance (their abilities) and not replace (them entirely). It's the difference between being empowered (Grace) and being obsoletized (Rev-9).

I hope readers are aware that I'm making a Terminator - Dark Fate reference.

:up:

Question: Is everything funny? If there's such a thing as black humor (one can make a joke about children dying of starvation and disease) and there is, a fortiori, everything is ridiculous. Democritus, the laughing philosopher, it seems, knew that and that's 2.5k years ago.

:up:

Just don't assume either is true. Instead, clarify what you mean by the word 'I'? — Yohan

Excelente! That's a plausible explanation for the Buddha's Noble Silence and yet, despite his unwillingness to do so, he had to turn the Dharma Chakra and that involved a lot of speaking. Assuming he would've preferred to have kept mum about what he had discovered, it's worth delving deeper into what he preached.



Descartes laid the foundation of all philosphy on the self for to Descartes, as existing, couldn't be doubted for to do so, Descartes hadta exist (doubt $\to$ doubter). Funnily, the Delphic Oracle seems to have been in the know about this; recall what the Oracle said: temet nosce (cogito ergo sum) and surety brings ruin (skepticism).

However, Descartes' argument breaks down when Agrippa's trilemma is brought to bear upon it.

1. I think $\to$ I exist
2. I think
Ergo,
3. I exist [1, 2 MP]

What's the proof for premise 1? What's the proof for the premise of the proof of premise 1? So on, ad infinitum.

:smile:

Muchas gracias señor!

inbuilt moral code or does this need to be learned — David S

My guess would be that it's a bit of both. There's a moral instinct in every species; I say this because cannibalism isn't exactly popular in the animal world and morality seems to reduce to the distinction like (me) and unlike (me). Where humans have made a quantum leap is in reasoning to the fact that we're all alike in being living organisms and, as we all know, nobody wants to die and/or experience pain. There are exceptions though but since they're quite rare, we can hope to get it right in most all of the ethical issues we encounter.

However, being rational about ethics can lead to inverse consequences e.g. one might find good reasons not to be moral or discover that it's better to be immoral.

It's worth noting that from an evolutionary standpoint (re the selfish gene, according to some a misleading label), altruism (the highest form of good we know of) is ultimately selfishness (the worst form of evil we're familiar with). A fortiori, good is just evil in disguise, oui monsieur? Evil is trying its best to be good! Awesome!

Well true, communication, despite my, what is to me an interesting, argument (not in any way to be construed as tooting my own horn), seems to work. However, in the simplified scenario of a world with just two words, my argument seems to be sound, oui? As the number of words (our lexicon) expands, the difficulty in re ensuring we're on the same page seems to compound as the possibility space of meaning (of words) explodes.

I'll get back to you if I hit upon anything worth discussing, ok?