Then, the mosquito example you gave stands supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but only spread in the environment and transited even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)? — Alkis Piskas

@Roger Gregoire'- your analogy fails on multiple levels. Fix the analogy and your conclusion gets traction.

The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold! — Roger Gregoire

ANSWER: The logical (mathematical/statistical) answer is that she would be TEN TIMES MORE SAFE because he is now taking on a disproportionate share of the risk. The odds/risk of her getting bit have now instantly reduced 10 fold! — Roger Gregoire

This is not correct. Viruses are not self-propelled. They move passively with the substance they are attached to, e.g. droplets of moisture from the lungs. — T Clark

though non-living organism — Caldwell

CONCLUSION: If we wish to save ourselves, then we need to "Follow the LOGIC" ...not the Bad Science (the science that disregards logic). — Roger Gregoire

So, I've thought about more communal living, but it's not easy; what happens if you come to dislike the people sharing the land with you? — Janus

Then what? Return to quantum babble? Be thankful there are a couple of physicists on board. :roll: — jgill

And one could even take this principle further to argue that symmetry is actually a feature of the context, reducing the internal thing which is supposed to be the symmetry itself, to a simple central point within a balanced environment. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the point I tried to make in the op is that the modern use of "symmetry" as it is used in pop metaphysics, in the sense of symmetry-breaking and similar concepts, derived from the application of mathematics in physics, is what we might call a perverted sense of "symmetry". It places "symmetry" as a feature of an object rather than as an arrangement of objects. We could say that it abstracts "a symmetry" as an object, from "symmetry" which is necessarily an arrangement, therefore a plurality of things. In essence, a true symmetry requires an arrangement of parts, whereas a modern symmetry is considered to be an invariant whole, thereby denying the possibility of parts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't get you. Out of sync with what? Out of sync with the modern sense? — Metaphysician Undercover

Interchangeability of the right and left, which constitutes "invariance", is only possible if the figure is considered to exist free from any context, without a location. Of course nothing really exists without a location, so "symmetry" in this sense is is just a false principle. It cannot be applied to anything real. — Metaphysician Undercover

I drew my conclusion from the fact that we're never taught logic in school though it's kinda like the master key to knowledge. We're supposed to abstract the principles and rules of natural deduction from math and the sciences that are part of the curriculum. In other words, we have to be, quite literally, another Aristotle or Chrysippus. No information on logic, only data which we havta analyze. A tall order in my humble opinion. Wrong? Ok, but there's a grain of truth in there somewhere. — Agent Smith

Go to university where your teach expects you to do all the processing. You'll be taught only broad principles — Agent Smith

↪Primperan
That leap is ... either stupid or merely trollish. Have a good one. — 180 Proof

What absurd clarity! You must be the unique person who does not know that you have to die. Good luck with that. — Primperan

This is certainly what popular culture often thinks philosophy is. One of the great platitudes you hear is all religion and all philosophy is simply humanity's inability to face death. I think this is exaggerated, — Tom Storm

Is there a way to describe various infinites without going right to number lines? Anything in real life to reference in terms of the infinite? — TiredThinker

A state monopoly on magick enforced by clairvoyant tactical police units. — jamalrob

In short, who the hell would be against it, even if the curriculum was of their choosing and even if it was executed as they would have it done? — James Riley

Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted, there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battle-field for sects and parties, causing the time and labour which should have been spent in educating, to be wasted in quarrelling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them.

The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State's taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.

An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence. Unless, indeed, when society in general is in so backward a state that it could not or would not provide for itself any proper institutions of education, unless the government undertook the task: then, indeed, the government may, as the less of two great evils, take upon itself the business of schools and universities, as it may that of joint stock companies, when private enterprise, in a shape fitted for undertaking great works of industry, does not exist in the country. But in general, if the country contains a sufficient number of persons qualified to provide education under government auspices, the same persons would be able and willing to give an equally good education on the voluntary principle, under the assurance of remuneration afforded by a law rendering education compulsory, combined with State aid to those unable to defray the expense.

Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo

Often there is no definitively rational reason to prefer one philosophical theory over another (all theories have their pros and cons), and so, in the end, perhaps it is my deep psychological biases that choose which theory I subscribe to. — clemogo

So, does this mean that philosophers are fooling themselves if they don't think that the only reason why they subscribe to the theories that they do is because of their personal arbitrary biases? — clemogo

Nevertheless, I found myself getting lost in who said what about what: You, Cavell, Diamond, Wittgenstein, Austin, Banno, Plato, Kant. So I removed the names and tried again to winnow the gist. The end result found me again embarrassingly wanting, and afraid to respond lest I sound even dumber than I am.

So I ask that it be re-written for my lay-eyes; barring that, I will graciously bow out and thank you for an offering, albeit too thick for me to eat. :chin: :smile: — James Riley

If I was charged in WI and had that judge I would. — James Riley

any country that burdens its free market with too much regulation will get surpassed by another country that doesnt — Miller

. Context is everything. That is why context was not allow[sic] in the trial. — James Riley

I don't deny that people have different (subjective?) experiences of music, I just think that music can also be described more or less objectively, and that there is therefore an objective basis for what we focus our attention on. — coolazice

I was thinking about aggregate growth, GDP... but sure, presumably you could shift available energy from one sector to another. — ChatteringMonkey

There's uncertainty about a number of things, when, how much, etc... but one thing seems clear, keeping our economy running on an expectation of growth seems like a recipe for disaster. — ChatteringMonkey

Coal usage has rebounded in the past year, wiping out declines in 2020 and interrupting a decades-long downward trend of use in advanced economies.

I can't not separate out the bassline, each part of the drum kit, the various harmonies, the effects applied, etc. even as I still hear the whole. — Kenosha Kid

Not sure what you mean. The free energy principle plays it's part, one must suppose, but the question is as to the extent of that part, no? — Banno

That the free energy principle is the constraint that drives adaptive learning is what is in contention. — Banno

The classical view, reflected somewhat in Kant, is that whilst perception is sensory, reason is not, in that reason inheres in the ability of intellect/nous to detect the underlying principles and order of things (as per classical metaphysics). But this faculty is precisely what was called into question, first by the nominalists (Ockham, Bacon) and then by the British empiricists (Hume, Locke, and Berkeley. See Jacques Maritain's essay The Cultural Impact of Empiricism, and also this blog post on the sensible and the intelligible.) — Wayfarer

I'd show you one or two, but I can't upload from the puter. Has to be another web site. :grin: — James Riley

The basic issue I see is that the rules of syntax, logic, and the like, can't be reduced to physical principles - they consist wholly and solely of relations between ideas. — Wayfarer

I swear, I want to raise an eyebrow when I see a kid with his pant around his knees, listening to whatever. But I remember my hair and bell-bottoms and cowboy hat and chew and Hendrix and Hank. — James Riley

whenever we find information, we find it inscribed or encoded somehow in a physical medium of whatever kind.

This is taken from this page which aggregates various articles about Landauer.

It seems, on face value, that this is mistaken to me, but then, Landauer was the head of IBM Research Labs, and I'm just an amatuer. But I have nothing to lose, so I'll give it a shot. — Wayfarer

Information transmission seems physical enough - the message though is conceptual. Is that what you're getting at?

I'm not exactly sure which one of these two Landauer was referring to. Has he conflated them? The idea of transmission of anything seems physical. — MikeL

What I said still stands: the notion described in the article is interesting, but not decided. — Banno

I suppose, given enough rope, one might see the dark room problem as this very misunderstanding of "surprise"; that the technical term is being confused with the common sense. — Banno

What is it about minimising free energy that is the same as fitting in to one's environment? — Banno