Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? — Benkei

That doesn't really make sense or you have simply left out what it is you really want from us.

The problems, such as the one you posted the photo of, are grounded in worldviews and is presented by the media. (hey... you posted a what? media link)

Maybe I should just say it this way... we have people killing another in the streets because they cannot make worldview options meet and we're left with bits and piece of information the media bring to our attention to somehow make a decision one way or the other.

Unless you wish us (or me) to fly off to where this kid lives and try to intervene, either helping that particular kid (I'd have no clue what that would even be) or telling the people there to the faces to "cut it out with this shit" what do you expect?

Meow!

GREG

A computer becoming bored and deciding to make up a tune would be a sign of computer intelligence. — Bitter Crank

Actually a computer with a midlife crisis would do it for me... complaining that the battery doesn't hold the charge as well as it used to or getting annoyed by all the faster younger computers trying to be important by simply being loud.

Yep!

If a computer can do that, then you have me sold. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Are you familiar with Emily Howell?

Emily Howell is a computer program created by David Cope during the 1990s. Emily consists of an interactive interface that allows both musical and language communication. By encouraging and discouraging the program, Cope attempts to "teach" it to compose music more to his liking. The program uses only the output of a previous composing program called Experiments in Musical Intelligence (Emmy) as a source database for its musical choices. (2005), MIT Press.





Meow!

GREG

I'm a bit of a fan of Alain de Botton (but not everything).

I have to admit his take on overflow media to keep people uninformed/misinformed, as well as his Taylor Swift vs. Global Warming are right on the mark.

I always approach news with a focus on 'why this story' and 'why now', as well as trying to distinguish reporting the news as a matter of fact and news commentary about what has been choosen by the media authorities that is to be reported.

Honestly I like the news reports in Germany the best. It's as if it's being read by robots or Vulcans. There is no different in emotional presentation between reporting a terror attack or fussball scores in the Bundesliga. It makes it somewhat boring, but it's all content with liitle or no commentary. My experience with American or British news is that it is a tiny bit of news with a lot of speculative and biased commentary. The best is in America how they move or insert pictures for extra dramatic effect. Seems to be a lot of "wagging dogs", as the tail is more in charge. ;)

Meow!

GREG

"The media" mostly lead us into the wilderness of images where we get lost. — Bitter Crank

INDEED!

I won't comment too much about this, but you might really find this video, well...

... I'll let you decide.



Meow!

GREG

In the light of the USA Presidential Election Horrorshow...



In ancient Rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

Meow!

GREG

The face of that child linked to in Benkei's post is a face I have been seeing for the past 15 years. — Baden

I didn't need CNN or the Guardian to show it to me now like it's something new,... — Baden

Off topic (well maybe)...

Baden's comment brought this to my mind.

This is why, in spite of the pictures, ask myself... why report this and why now?

There are so many conflicts going on right now and so many conflicts that have been going on in the past, but I'm always curious as to why what is reported and when it is reported.

Anyway...

... how about all of these ongoing conflicts? How many are getting attention?

- War in Somailia (since 2006 or 2009... starting date is an additional conflict)
- South Yemen insurgency (since 2009)
- Sudanese nomadic conflicts (since 2009)
- Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (since 2007)
- Boko Haram insurgency (since2009)
- Kivu conflict (since 2004)
- War in North-West Pakistan (since 2004)
- Insurgency in the North Caucasus (since 2009)
- War in Darfur (since 2003)
- Balochistan conflict (since 2003)
- Conflict in the Niger Delta (since 2004)
- Mexican Drug War (since 2006)
- War in Donbass (since 2014)

I've probably left something out.

So... where or what are the "underlying problems" in these cases?
Can we identify them or will that cause even more problems?
Do we care to look at photos of children who have suffered in these conflicts as well?
Will we have them presented to us in the media?
Do we care to look at more than just the children who have suffered?
Does the care or emotional impact we feel hold the same level if it was an adult or a dog?
Are we being informed or are we being lead or something else?
Is this media a service or and industry or something else?

Sorry to be such a "media critic", but I feel these questions need to be considered.

Until then...

I do understand where your coming from, but one question is still in my mind...

... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process? — Mayor of Simpleton

Guys...

... thanks for lending support of my suspicion.

Now... please kiss and make up. This arguing is getting us nowhere.

Meow!

GREG

... but in the end seems like combatting a symptom that doesn't solve the underlying problem. — Benkei

I do understand where your coming from, but one question is still in my mind...

... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process?

As I view it, there is not an "underlying problem", but multiple problems that shift in importance/priority as this situation develops. I've reached the point where I feel that there is no single action or single decision or single solution to this situation. Also, when I look at history, this situation is really nothing new. The situation simply gets a new face or a new set design or a new soundtrack as time passes.

In short... rather than call it "the underlying problem" I refer to it as the situation. (in bold print)

What I can say with some small degree of certainty is that I really have no idea how to rid humanity of this situation, much less identify all the facets of the multiple problems associated with this situation.

Result is me thinking global and acting local.

Indeed I could leave my wife and try to do some active field work in those areas that are mostly effected/affected by this situation, but what sort of problems would that create locally?

One of the problems here is the guilt associated with our moments of joy. Not joy of us being outside of the main core of this situation, but our ability to have joy knowing that such a situation exists. This might well included having joy in life knowing one has no idea how to make a positive effect/affect upon the situation.

Benkei... I have no answer for this situation. I'm not even sure if I can really clearly identify what this situation is without causing the situation to flame. All I feel I can do is act locally, as to perhaps slow the expansion of this situation by fighting elements at the core of the situation... such as racism, xenophobism, jingoism, sexism, homophibia, meritocratic elitism, and other poles of moral/ethical idealistic absolutes founded upon connotative baggage and false premises.

This won't make you laugh, but it's worth it, as it honestly captures a lot of what I'm not doing a very good job of writing about... it probably isn't good either, but anyway:



Meow!

GREG

ehmmm, what? XD — TSBU

I think I'm not going to answer you anymore... — TSBU

As Wilde once stated: "The only thing I cannot resist is temptation." — Mayor of Simpleton

Made you look.

Meow!

GREG

My reaction to post #22

20 pages of replys XD and that's what the killer said, he can change his mind. — TSBU

I think I'm not going to answer you anymore... — TSBU

I'm not crying — TSBU

I think I'm not going to answer you anymore... — TSBU

I want to understand and be understood — TSBU

I just know what I want — TSBU

Try to do the same over and over, then they'll say you are a serial killer, you know jow journalist are — TSBU

I don't feel this is a game. — TSBU

Playing murderer role — TSBU

Indeed...

... this space between us is perhaps a very good idea.

Meow!

GREG

I think I'm not going to answer you anymore... — TSBU

that's what the killer said, he can change his mind. — TSBU

As Wilde once stated: "The only thing I cannot resist is temptation." — Mayor of Simpleton

I think that this is simply false, and it's based on a misconception you have of both serial killers and psychopaths. It was in fact a serial killer that was the subject of your original question, but you've now changed that to (or made the addition of) a psychopath. Do you use the terms synonymously as labels for someone you, for whatever reason, conceive of as lacking these human features which they do not in fact necessarily lack, and likely do not, unless they're completey insane, which is rare. — Sapientia

It's kind of like the all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

All serial killers are psychopaths, but not all psychopaths are serial killers.

Meow!

GREG

I've a few minutes, so I'll play a bit... in spite of it being a 20 page rule... like I give a shit about your rules.

You are wrong about me. I'm not very intelligent, I'm carefull(I hope you understand that I'm not going to tell you how). I generally chose my victims because they are easy targets. — TSBU

Strange...

... you have no selection process other than "they happen to be there"?

That's not very safe or careful.

How are they "easy targets"?

You have to take into consideration so many factors, as just killing someone in a dark place by themself is not really a careful action. I'm not buying this.

I can't anticipate what are you going to say. You don't have to believe me, but I'm really interested in a reason to stop. — TSBU

Then stop!

Gee whiz! Why all the dramatic cry baby "I can't help myself bullshit" and going to an internet forum to get help. Go to a professional or simply turn yourself in.

Again... I'm not buying this.

I think a lot of people want to kill someone — TSBU

Indeed, but they don't. Also, if they do kill someone, that does not make them a serial killer.

It's relaxing, — TSBU

Are you bullshitting me?

If it's relaxing, you wouldn't have this conflict of wanting to quit.

Not buying this...

I don't feel guilty about my victims, a lot of people die every day. — TSBU

Then why do you want to stop?

Make up your mind!

Sure a lot of people die every day, but since when do you get to decide when someone is to die?

Seriously not buying this...

I really don't know why should I stop. But I know that a lot of people thinks that this is wrong, and I'm interested in see why, in see how a lot of people thinks in this matters. — TSBU

This is a different question than why should I stop. You are asking is muder wrong. Might I suggest opening another thread or simply staying on the topic.

Seriously... this is a hard sell you are tossing my way.

I feel... alone in my mind. — TSBU

Get in line...

Remember, you are in this situation. If you cannot imagine this, then don't play, but if you play, that's what the killer said. And remember, I'm not the killer, I'm just curious. — TSBU

So it's a false dilemma.

Just peachy!

Meow!

GREG

Yes, of course. It's not just possible, but incredibly likely. Do you think serial killers are like extraterrestrials? They're more human than you might think. — Sapientia

Really?

First of all... I have no concept of the rationality of extraterrestrials. Never met one, much less held a conversation with one. Have you?

Also, since when is being "human" a guarantee of any rational conversation?

Sure we can wax validity of their positions only within the context of their psychopathic anti-social behaviour, but is this really the standard of measure we wish to employ?

Really... to what end?

Sure if you are just involved with a thought experiment... well... then have fun... but I prefer to act in more than the theoretical, as let's face it... if they kill someone for real, that's not a thought game.

Meow!

GREG

EDIT:

Indeed you can have a rational conversation within the context standard socially accepted norms (as in killing people for the sake of a psychopathic urge is not one of these socially accepted norms) with a psychopath, but only in therapy... and not in the first couple of sessions.

Remember the "rules of the game" we're made to play... 20 replies a day by just anyone.

I "am" the killer for this thread if you want to say something to him. For me, that is the most interesting part of the thread. You can ask the killer why is he doing that (and he might give you an answer). — TSBU

No...

... that's playing into the hands of the killer; thus empowering him.

Here's a better question:

Is it possible to have a rational conversation using any standard norms of social behaviour with someone who is a serial killer?

Let's assume for a moment you are not a medical killer (rare, but do exist) or a disorganized killer (they make mistaks - hee hee - and are the easiest to catch) and assume you are a classical organized killer...

... then, you're probably highly intelligent, thus use this form of communication as a means to manipulate. Any conversation would be less and "question and answer modus", but more you guiding the questions with answers that lead to the question being asked you wish to be asked.

You're more than likely well organized to the point of being obsessive compulsive. Every detail of the crime is planned out well in advance (including such a dialog on an internet message board) and the you'd take every precaution to make sure they leave no incriminating evidence behind, so any answers you give would be more misleading than useful in finding out your identity.

A serial killer would, by perhaps older definitions, be considered a psychopath.

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/) is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits. (sourse wiki)

Again...

... is a rational conversation, as if you are just the "average Joe", really possible much less useful?

Why did I try to provoke you earlier?

Simple...

... a psychopath, like you, likes to watch potential victims for several days to find someone they consider to be a good target. Once the victim is chosen, the you'd meet up with them in a calculated fashion, often through some sort of ploy designed to gain their sympathy. You'd make sure they were killed in the proper location, either the meeting point or a place that fits your ritual.

Being a psychopath, you'd have certainly an egotistical trait that might well be the Achilles heel. The vast majority of psychopaths cannot resist a challenge or someone exhibiting traits such as their own, especially when the provocation exceeds their own level of egoism.

I simply attempted to see if you'd bite. I appear not to be shocked or even really moved by your anti-social actions and arrogantly provided you knowingly a "victim made easy" guideline. It's a test of your obsessive compulsive egoistic drive.

As Wilde once stated: "The only thing I cannot resist is temptation."

Also, gee whiz ... going to the internet... huh, you obviously want to show off. Once you kill a person you'd usually take precautions to ensure the body is not found … until you want it to be found. You live for control. By presenting your victim in an internet forum of your choosing and presented in your manner, let's face it... you take great pride in what they consider to be your "art" or "design" or "creation" or "gift" or “work”... whatever defintion you wish to attach to self-justify what you are doing.

Like any other serial killer you have a tendency to pay close attention to media and wish to use it. This explains the internet choice. You want to be known.

Obviously one of your motivating factors may be just to attempt to stump the law enforcement officers who are trying to solve their crime. You are probably very savvy as to how they'd do an investigation and feel great power in pulling them by the nose ring you have attached to them by your own means.

So...

... why should I play your game with your rules?

Meow!

GREG

Well...

... if this means I'd need to be on a chan4 board, then I'd never see it. Actually outside of this Forum and Facebook I don't think I've ever been on a message board.

Anyway...

... how this?

If I had the time and wanted to bother, I might post a time, a date, a location and a color of a t-shirt and follow this by saying "game on".

Meow!

GREG

Yes...

... you know me, so some of this is well... boring.

I apply quite a bit of philosophy in my approach to training athletes. More than just a couple of motivational quotes. I'd say the application of logic (rules of inference) play a major role in my ability to analyse training data, as well as commentary from my athletes.

As for personal "world view"...

... believe it or not when I was in college I sort was on my way to attempt to become... hold onto your hats... a Christian apologist.

I participated in debates where I (more of less) was the frontline in defense of Christian theology, as well as various other beliefs associated with Chistian theology.

During a debate against a few new newcomers to the debate scene, who were to take up a counter position to mine, I did something rather odd (to say the least). My "opponents" in this educational debate were not very well prepared, as well as not being well versed in deabte. I made the suggestion to "help out", as I was under the impression that there was an educational aspect to what we were doing and not just a forum to "beat up the other guys".

Long story short, I began to present counter arguments to my own. It wasn't too difficult as I had heard them very often in the past.

The result was one of the single most schizophrenic debates ever sponsored by our philosophy department, as I simply took over and argued with and critically questioned myself for the next 45 minutes. Needless to say, this provided a lot of humor (something new), but more important was that I not only heard the counter positions, but actually considered them in the process. One can say in those 45 minutes I literally "talked myself" into a new worldview without a single bit of existential crisis.

Since then this worldview has been subject to a lot of revision and is still a work in progress, but indeed this experience has been the framework and catalyst for nearly every perspective I hold.

Another odd thing brought by philosophy is that I seem to have a rather detached sense of relativitiy of ethics allows me to be the "cool head" in the face of moral conflicts (or so I'M often told and thus asked to moderate stuff now and then). It does piss people off a lot that I simply don't just go with the "emotional flow", but can indeed "chill" in the face of ad populum moral passion plays... especially as presented in the media.

Philosophy has shaped my humor and what few things I have written in the comedy scene. The best joke being the comedians who use jokes written by me... the "dyslexic guy".

Philosophy has been a pain in the ass as well... it has happened on a number of occasions that I will hold tight to a principle at my own cost. I believe that the only test of principles are not when they work in you favor, but when you know you are going to crash and burn, but still hold to them. Well... recent example of this "self-destructive behaviour" for the sake of a principle was PF. MY invite to the "safety boat" resulted in my being placed "under review"... actually worse than being banned. I won't bother with the details, but I knew I was throwing away something that had been very important to me for over 6 years. Indeed it had to be done and as much as I did not want to do what I was doing, I knew I had to do it. (OK... PF is looking, well... no one knows, but this place ain't too bad, eh? This risk paid off.)

It was certainly not my first or even close to the most dramatic. Sometimes it has resulted in my quiting or rejecting a lucrative job or opportunity, losing the contact with family members and firends or funny things like, in spite of being financially busted, taking the opportunity to buy my ex-girlfriend, who was working in the same place as I was making my life hell, a one way ticket to fly off and move to another city some 2000+ miles away, knowing she'll either get a job there and stay or have to get a crap job there to afford to come back again... either/or I'd be rid of her and knew in an instance it was worth having to live off rice and tuna fish for a month.

There are a lot of small applications, but somehow important things that have occured... like using logic to talk two groups of people in NYC after the Rodney King verdict into NOT rioting or provoking a riot. Also, I was once detained by a madman in his apartment... seriously... who threatened to kill me. I did talk him down using absurdism... thank you Camus and Kafka!!!

For those who know my medical history and my brain exploding (literally)... without my absurdist tendencies, I really have no idea how I would have come back... again and again and again and oh... I have another operation in about 6 weeks. Elbow... a strange thing that needs to be removed. Will I pitch baseball again... who knows, but carry on regardless. Oh right... and I play to keep playing in spite of my most recent discovery that I have arthritis in my fingers.Shit happens! So use it as fertilizer and see what you can grow.

Believe me I can drone on about this topic, so I'll let this go for now.

Meow!

GREG

I mean wasn't the Fantastic 4 the 1st family? — Cavacava

I have to give credit where it's due...

... the "family concept" goes back to Fawcett Comics (Whiz Comics), purchased later by DC Comics, with the Marvel Family (1942), also known as Shazam (a bit ironic as this has nothing to do with Marvel comics). This was about 19 years before the Fantastic Four Family (1961) hit the scene.



Actually the concept of "family" is one that comes up frequently in comics, but they are usually not "blood relatives".

I have more the feeling that such "families" were there to replace one's own family, as the concepts of "the misfit" or "outcast" are even more present in comics... much more so in Marvel than DC, who was more about having a "darkside"... and Whiz, who had a very squeeky clean feel to them.

Funny thing is what has endured the most has been Marvel.

One thing about Marvel...

... the Marvel world set a lot of things in NYC and not in mythical Gotham or Metropolis.

Also, the crossovers were more logical... like if Spiderman needed a lawyer he'd contact Matt Murdock (Daredevil).

I'll stop... as you can tell I'm much more a fan of Marvel, but appreciate DC.

The two worlds creators copied and stole from one another on a regular basis. Indeed they are rivials, but at the same time the biggest fanboys out of all.

Meow!

GREG

Philosophy is bullshit sometimes, right? — buket

Just philosophy that's not very good or logical or accurate to reality or I'm gonna paint myself into a corner soon...

... I'll just say Ayn Rand and run. (now that's some bullshit!)

Meow!

GREG

So naming always has this dual aspect - our attempts to speak of the world objectively, and then the degree to which we really want to work our own personal perspective into the naming of things. — apokrisis

... but regardless of how objective we try to be, we are still fielding a value assertion according to an accepted standard of measure. Who fields the assertion and who fields the value assertions?

Indeed I will accept the definition of an authority and not just accept any position by anyone on the street. (I'm not a post-modernist, but like to use it as a check now and then.)

I suppose if I take to to the regress we all wish to avoid, what exactly makes a thing a thing?

As I understand this, a thing is a recognizable (by us) collage of strings (or loops or atoms or whatever is the smallest thing is found in everything... we're still refining that, so I'll drop that now) or an action/event that is in a pattern perceived consistancy context with a collage of strings (or whatever) that WE give a lable to as to make reference to this collage or event/action in context of a collage in the hope of having some sort of shared communication and conveying of ideas.

I know I can do better than that (it's late and I need to go to bed), but the point is WE define things... WE assert value. We can also misdefine things and assert value that is not really accurate... BUT accuracy and definition are still according to a standard of measure WE put into motion according to OUR experiences. As we experience more or refine knowledge of experience defintions, value assertions and standards of measure change/adapt/refine.

I don't ever rule out the possibility that our physics of today will be looked upon in the future as being near child's play. We've come a lot way, but certainly have a much longer way to travel. Definitions will continue to evolve as the standards of measure become more and more evoled.

So...

... what is a planet?

We can only answer this according to the current collection of knowledge we have and according to the best possible standard of measure in respect to this knowledge. As for an absolute answer... "please stand-by"... more informaton will be collected; thus refinement will occur.

... what is called a planet?

Actually the same thing, but also what one understands to be a planet, even if it happens to be outdated information, knowledge and standards of measure. Indeed this can be adapted as well, but sometimes it isn't. Not everyone really cares to be that exact and indeed it really might not make any difference to their lives, but hey... there's a lot of stuff out there to know and not a lot of time to get it all in one's head.

Meow!

GREG

... again!

What's up with these voices in my head and who am I talking with...

Meow!

GREG

So, whose your favorite marvel hero? — Wosret

This is off-topic, but it's your thread and we know each other, so a bit of fun...

Guardians of the Galaxy... the whole group...



especially Rocket Racoon:



also...

I quite like The HULK... just smash! (Remind me of 180 Proof in the Philosophy of Religion section)



and the ultimate post-modernist anti-hero DEADPOOL!!!



counting bullets... "bad Deadpool... good Deadpool... I'm touching myself tonight!"



This craps keeps me sort of less insane than usual. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Echo... echo... echo...

Am I talking to myself again?

Gee whiz! Who am I asking?

Nevermind...

Meow!

GREG

The pioneers of the World Wide Web thought it would usher in an era of people power and the free flow of knowledge. — jamalrob

I feel here's the foundation of the problem.

Did the pioneers of the World Wide Web simply assume that the people could handle this power much less possess knowledge to let free to flow?

How often were they out of the lab?

Meow!

GREG

It all comes down to standards of measure and the time in which they're applied.

Pluto was considered a planet according to a standard of measure from a different time. Now we don't consider it a planet due to a refinement in that standard of measure.

Pluto still is... but what it is a relative to our standard of measure and the time in which we apply it.

Is there a difference between being a planet and being called a planet?

For whom or what? Me or Pluto?

What is required for a thing to be a planet?

I suppose this:

The definition of planet set in Prague, Czech Republic in August 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:

1) is in orbit around the Sun,
2) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3) has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.

* Now if you are watching a episode of "Rick and Morty" and you're Morty's dad, well...



Was Pluto ever a planet?

Well... it was considered a planet prior to this definition, so prior to 2006 I suppose we considered it a planet.

I sort don't think there is an fundamental intrinsic "planetness" that is a priori to the term planet. Any definition is bound by standards of measure and assumptions/attributions of value, so honestly definition are relative.

Sorry this probably doesn't help, but I'm not really sure you asked a question. What is a planet and what is considered (correctly according to the accepted definition) a planet are indeed both planets... until we decide to invent a new term or a new standard of measure; thus changing the definition. Pluto is still Pluto... unless we decide to change that, but I feel my point is drgging on here so I'll let it go.

Meow!

GREG

I am not generally averse to your point of view, MoS! And i thought your first post above was well-stated. — Wayfarer

I have the feeling that this "at odds with another" was in a different time, in a different space (well... different forum) under a different name. I'm kind of mellowing with time. ;)

Off-topic indeed, but so what!

Meow!

GREG

That's cool, but I was refering to my statement. (which I suppose needs more refinement)

Indeed I did start out with "unknown", but refined that to something far less misleading. (or so I thought)

I'm not too sure how Neo-Darwinism resulted in my changing the notion, as I feel it had more to do with Wayfarer's reply..and knowing the relationship I've had with Wayfarer that deserves a WOW! ;)

Meow!

GREG

I'd say that the notion of "chance" within evolutionary theory is NOT a myth, but indeed an indication of what is still unknown. (if anything, it is an admission of humility and an indication of limits) — Mayor of Simpleton

Well...

I have the notion that Wayfarer put it a bit better in stating 'causes yet discovered' than simply stating it as unknown. — Mayor of Simpleton

Indeed...

... proof that postions can refine.

Meow!

GREG

I don't agree Mayor. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fine...

When it is believed that there is a cause or reason for a particular occurrence, the cause or reason being unknown, yet the believer claims "chance" for this occurrence, this claim is deceptive. — Metaphysician Undercover

The claim is not deceptive, the claim is ignorant.

The claim is only deceptive when one wishes to claim chance as a "natural force" or an "agent of cause".

Also... please note... you called chance "unknown". I didn't call it that, so in a way this position you have thrush upon me is well... deceptive.

It is deceptive because what is claimed, "chance" is inconsistent with what is believed, "cause, or reason". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not sure what to make of that...

... I still view chance as more an result that can be known if one can make an investigation in to all the determing variables, but one either does not or cannot make this investigation.

In any scientific investigation there are degrees of freedom involved. There are factors that one does not and indeed cannot take into consideration. In spite of the deficit one can still know some things with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Here might be the problem. By calling chance the "unknown" it seems as if there has been an assumption that what is here unknown is indeed unknowable. I really cannot agree with that, nor is what I would suggest.

Another point to make here would be regarding standards of measure.

At what point is something considered to be reliable?

At what point is there enough investigation to indicate that something may very well be a cause or a reason beyond any reasonable doubts?

When an individual claims "X is the case" while believing X is not the case, this is deception. There is no place for such deception in science. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here we can agree. There is no place in science for this sort of deception, but I don't think it is very often the case in scientific investigation.

Such a deception as you mention is very rampant in other non-scientific pursuits... often in the fields of religion, metaphysics and politics... fields where they have a great tendency to use non-scientific approachs to forming a worldview, in that they start first with the answer and then work toward forming a universe of questions where the pre-assumed answer remains unchallenged.

I can remember a member of PF (psychotick I believe) who refered to this as "top-down thinking". (...as if science was "bottom-up thinking". Personally I feel science has no top or bottom, but rather expands in a multitude of directions without a pre-assumed directionality as a bias.)

Anyway...

... I can't really say I agree with you here, nor was I the one who stated "chance" is unknown.

Meow!

GREG

... as Mayor of Simpleton says, that "chance" just stands in for "unknown", ... — Metaphysician Undercover

Well...

I have the notion that Wayfarer put it a bit better in stating 'causes yet discovered' than simply stating it as unknown. (not to mention that Wayfarer sort of liked something I said... hasn't really happened all too often; thus I must have accidentially said something that might have a tiny bit of merit... poker tells in philosophy)

Anyway (for what it's worth here)...

One thing I usually consider is that evolutionary theory isn't termed evolutionary law. I feel that this reflect the difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

To my knowledge, scientific laws differ from scientific theories (or hypotheses) in that laws do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements, thus they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.

In any event scientific laws, as with theories and hypotheses, can indeed make predictions, but can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data accumulated.

Perhaps if someone would suggest that "chance" is a force of nature or a guiding hand or a metaphysical construct in the manner that luck is thought of by some (especially gamblers or the superstitious), then we might have a beef that chance is a form of deception.

I still find that chance is a check to any and all scientific theory, especially when one is compelled to view theory as the notion of absolute/universal/static certainty; thus chance is a fuel to the fire of investigative process rather than a bucket of water to extinguish this flame.

Meow!

GREG

The notion of "chance" within evolutionary theory is simply a myth. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd say that the notion of "chance" within evolutionary theory is NOT a myth, but indeed an indication of what is still unknown. (if anything, it is an admission of humility and an indication of limits)

( EDIT:

I have the notion that Wayfarer put it a bit better in stating 'causes yet discovered' than simply stating it as unknown. )

What appears to happen by chance does indeed have determining factors. Problems arise in establishing certainity in that when there are simply too many determining factor or factors we are simply not in the position to take into consideration (those we cannot detect or cannot understand or simply have far too little time to take into consideration due to limitation of our lifespans) we simply look at that particular as being the result of chance. In short... we don't know.

The term in evolutionary theory functions much like the term "luck" funtions in our everyday activities.

Luck is more or less an unanticipated action/event/outcome that indeed does have determinging factors, but we are either unaware of them or simply do not particularly care to make an investigation into why it played out as it has; thus we attribute it to luck.

Chance is an admission of there is more to discover.

Rather than accept the facts of life as real brute facts, the scientific community would rather hide behind the myth of "chance". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not really sold that science is rejecting facts, but it's more that science is a continual investigative process of accumulation/adaptation leading to refinement rather than a static point of absolute certainty to on sitting upon dogmatic positions as "real brute facts" that are to be unchallenged.

Chance is an indication that the investigative process remains a process rather than live within a refuge of absolute universal brute facts... which might well be answering the unknown with the unchallengable unknowable that indeed is no answer at all.

Meow!

GREG

I haven't read any comics, no, but watched some cartoons as a kid, and the movies and stuff. I do think that they're just more fun, and relatable than DC heroes, and other heroes. They still solve 100% of their problems with violence though, which isn't instructive. — Wosret

Well, Professor X (Charles Xavier) of the X-Men is just the opposite, as he solves things via reasoning with the people. Now... he does have a psychic connection to people and can enter their minds and some might call this activity violent. It depends on the application of anything one wishes to mention or isolate as a skills/action and it is valued relative to the standard of measure one holds for what is violent.

In addition to this, I notice that more often than one cares to notice the concept of epiphany is often the means with which super heroes in the Marvel Universe end conflicts. It is not really a "black and white world" of moral polarities. As I said before, all Marvel characters, heroes and villains, are flawed people and indeed find themselves being tossed back and forth between being hero and villian.

One thing I really like about Marvel is that no one is perfect and no one has the perfect answer. Indeed they have to kill ass and break stuff now and then, as they are responding to an aggressive force that isn't open for reason (usually representing a totalitarian rule - Stan Lee is very anti-totalitarian), but I find in Marvel there is a realism in the moral dilemmas. Marvel questions all authority and very much questions blind faith.

Anyway...

... have you seen the X-Men Trilogy?

If not, I'd encourage it.

OK... the special effects and bombastic fight sequences tend to be what many come to see and unfortunately that is all they take away. What I have from this trilogy is a question... what are we as a human species? What is fair? What is justice? What is a monster?

The monster issue runs big in the whole Marvel Universe.

This seems to be everywhere:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Freddi N

I could go into a lot of specific and deal with the person struggles of the characters within the Marvel Universe (and get this... I'm not really a big time geek in this scene), but I would not really sell heroes short in that they exclusively use violence for every answer to every problem. In fact, I find that the vast majoirty of key questions are answered via non-violent reasoning. The violence is just an illustration of the unwillingness of people to respond to reason; thus the violence is not as glorified as it seems.

Maybe I'm a bit biased here, as I view Stan Lee to be one of the greatest figures in philosophical literature.

Meow!

GREG

Well, I'm gonna stick with the user name Mayor of Simpleton.

Although Κασσάνδρα could be a good alternative.

Meow!
(indeed)



GREG

They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them. — Wosret

You don't read any Marvel comics do you?

Nearly every "hero" in the Marvel world is a very flawed person, who became a hero due to an accident, a mutation or somehow being talked into taking up that role. The line between "hero" and "villian" is a very narrow one and often they cross back and forth between the roles.

Deadpool... a hero? (or a postmodern philosophical perspective of "just fuck it")

X-Men... heros? (or people who by no fault or choice of their own had a mutating gene that caused them to be different than the norm... they are both hero and villian inspired by the discrimination they've had to endure, as well as the fear of being different)

The Guardians of the Galaxy... heros? (or simply some people (crooks, bounty hunters, murderers, freaks) who ended up together and happen to band together to fight off a psychopath... with the original intention to get money... units... lots of units!)

The beauty in Marvel comics is that the heros are just a flawed and are outcasts as the readers often felt themselves to be; thus have an uplifing quality about them, as well as a realistic feel to the fantasy.

Michel de Montaigne stated: "Kings and philosophers shit, and so do ladies."

You can add heros to that list as well, but if you are wearing a latex body suit that can be quite a difficult and potentially messy thing.

Meow!

GREG

Kinda like the opinion about whether or not 2+2=4? When someone says, "it's my opinion that 2+2=5... " It doesn't change my mind. I just look at them funny. — anonymous66

I really hate to kick at this, but 2+2=4 takes on a new perspective relative to the context, as in adding 2 of what to 2 of the another to result in making 4 of what?

Let's say you add 2 liters of liquid to 2 other liters of liquid and are asked how many liters of liquid would be ther result of this addition. The common answer is 4 liters.

The problem here is quite clear. What liquids are involved?

Sure if we have 2 liters of water and add that to 2 liters of water you'd have 4 liters of water, but what if you add 2 liters of water to 2 liters of liquid nitrogen? More than likely the answer would be 0 liters, as what nitrogen doesn't go to a gaseous it would work as an agent to freeze the water into a solid state.

Context and specifics really matter in making value assertions.

If you add 2 apples to 2 bottle of diet cola you cannot come up with 4 paintings by Van Gogh; thus in this case 2 + 2 = 0, but if you ask how many apples it would be 2+2=2.

------------------------------------------------------

btw... The problem with "Common Core" is that there is often an attempt to teach maths via ambiguity.

An example:





Horrible question! Horrible teaching!

Take 2 from 5 and add it to 8... does that mean you have removed 2 from 5 or subtracted 2 from 5?

It could be argued that if one "takes" 2 from 5 the remainer would be 3. Adding 3 to 8 gives one 11. (no wonder the kids are looking at this stuff as if to say "bullshit"!)

If the teacher said subtract 3 from 5 there would have been no ambiguity.

Also (to make matters worse), why not just as well say add 57 to 5 and divide that by 31 and add the remainder to 8... or any combination of maths that will result in 2 to be added to 8?

There are simply too many possible answers, due to the cryptic nature of the question. Judging by the handwriting of the student, does anyone really believe that this form of open ended ambiguity is an appropriate methodology for learning maths for students of this age?

Oh... and we never really considered subtracting 3 from 8 then adding that to 5 or do we take 5 from 8 or ...now it's really screwed up.

Ambiguity of intention leads one to frustration and a lack of clarity. If it simply read 5 + 8 - x =10, it would have been clear, but it does grant me a reason to kill 15 minutes for a post in the forum.

I suppose how can we determine what is morally right or wrong about common core might be the next issue at hand, eh?

Meow!

GREG

Considering that human beings had no role in establishing their very existence, do they truly have the ability to determine what is morally right and wrong in a world that they had nothing to do with prior? — DJ Young

Something sort of makes me think that we might be on to a non-sequitur here, as why should not having any role in coming into being imply that one subsequently cannot make value determinations of what one considers to be good or bad in the moral sense of the application?

If independent thoughts based upon past events determine what is morally right and wrong, what determined it in the first place? — DJ Young

That seems like a very different question or perhaps holds within an implication... maybe something begging to be stated?

Let's run with the notion that good or bad are value assertions founded upon experiences/information/interpretations of past events (or not run with that if you have something else in mind) and I'll go a step further to suggest that such value assertions can indeed be refined and adapted over time subject to the accumulation of subsequent experiences/information/interpretations... (that was a mouthful)

... what is determined "in the first place" seems to not really fit as a question, but is actually a statement.

The implication of "in the first place" sort of assumes that there is indeed some sort of starting point or absolute or universal that "got the moral ball rolling".

Why assume there was a "first place"?

My reasoning for this is that when we make value assertions (in the case of good and bad) we are making them founded upon our experiences/information/interpretations at that moment in time. Sure we build upon this value assertion process, but one does not need to have knowledge of everything to field a value assertion. I would highly doubt that anyone is in the position to know, as well as take into consideration all possible variables when making such a value assertion. (there are just too many things to consider and too little time to do so provided that one actually could consider them all somehow)

Sorry to muddle this up. I'm not really doing much philosphy as of late. I'm more than just a bit rusty.

I would personally resort to the pre-existing statues in effect prior to humanity's rise, but I'm curious to hear the thoughts of fellow philosophers. — DJ Young

I'm not all to sure how this factors into the mix.

We sort of addressed independent thought and now we have "humanity's rise"... seems like a move from the individual (perhaps a special case) on to a very large and vague generalization of event and it's previous effect/affects upon humanity's ability to field value assertions of good or bad.

Anyway...

... I won't make any futher assumptions, as there simply are not enough words in the OP for me to make heads or tails of what we are really addressing.

How is not having played a role in one coming into being a sequitur factor into one being able to field value assertions of good or bad?

Why must one have some sort of knowledge (if at all possible) of the first place (if indeed that place is a real place and not simply another value notion of unfounded certainty) to field value assertions of good or bad?

I'm not all too sure of what is meant by "humanity's rise" and why we need to have knowledge prior to this event, which I'm not all too sure we can place a date ot time upon or...

I need an espresso.

Meow!

GREG

Funny thing is it comes up first if you write in "the philosophy forum".

Google.at it comes up 3rd with "philosophy forum".

Meow!

GREG

I doubt that this guy is not heard of by anyone, but I quite enjoy Alain de Botton.

Since I don't really read (dyslexia), I tend to listen. I can't say I agree with everything he offers, but if I did agree with it all it would be boring. Why? It appeals to me and is nice to play in the background.

I can give a few examples for what it's worth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I08u0eKvwUY (the media)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ (new approach to atheism)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCTzbc76WXY (history of manners)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqhUHyVpAwE (impostor syndrome)

Meow!

GREG

I'll go with "The Great Divorce"...

... as it could be said "Black Wednesdays Matter".

Meow!

GREG

There will be a day when this site goes down and everyone will run over to PF waiting for this site to come back up. Mark my words. — Hanover

Well...

... if so, that makes me no one or if I'm part of everyone then you are dead wrong.

Meow!

GREG