t maybe that creating an intelligent entity that is fundamentally different from ourselves is impossible even for an omnipotent God? 'Great minds think alike' is the saying - I would modify that to: 'All minds think alike'. — Devans99

That lowers the bar of "omnipotent" below the acceptable level of the definition.

suffering is required to define a baseline for happiness and in order to value happiness. — Devans99

I was happy as a child, without a baseline of suffering. I can conceive of a system where people are happy, and they consciously realize that, without having had to suffer, or even without having a concept of suffering.

Why couldn't God create that? He is not omnipotent?

maybe best physiologically to get the worst bit over with first - the experience of evil on earth - followed by the good bit (heaven). — Devans99

Why not go from extremely good to superbly good, to ecstatically good? Why start at a level below acceptable?

I am a great-grandson of God.

I lied! God is my third cousin, twice removed.

I lied! God is my brother-in-law's uncle's pet canary who was sold to him by Minglende, the Danish butcher during the great typewriter-revolution.

Marry Christmas, and happy birthday, Jesus!

A belief is always a belief that such-and-such. Hence, misrepresenting what one believes is always misrepresenting two things: that such-and-such is the case; and that one believes that such-and-such is the case. — Banno

If one has a false belief, then his misrepresenting his own belief may produce that he is representing things truthfully.

This is not a slippery slope; it is an on-off situation, where the initial state dictates each state after a switch to the opposite.

Does this matter in regard to the overall project? The orator example is clearer, I think. The orator, according to Frankfurt does not care what his audience believes with regard to god and history; only that they draw a certain conclusion about what he, the orator, believes about such things. A prime example of humbug.

But that's not right. The orator's aim is the endorsement by their audience. If the audience does not admire those who are patriotic and god-fearing, the oration fails. Indeed it is those who do not accept these values who are most likely to recognise the humbug. — Banno

I am not sure if it's values that are lied about, or facts. The orator may give an example of how value affects behaviour; and the example is the key. If the audience KNOWS that the example's event were different from how they had happened in reality, then they call "humbug". If the example's facts are right on, then there is no humbug.

if the orator states "the example is right because the person's values dictated him or her to act that way", then it's the same thing as the twenty dollar in my pocket: the audience has no way of knowing.

But there is more: the audience also knows that the orator has no way of knowing the values of the person; only the person knows his own values. However, even if the person who had acted states to the audience, "I did this because of the values I have", the audience has no way of knowing, only believing. "I have twenty dollars in my pocket" is the same unverified claim as "I have this value". The twenty dollars can be verified; the values can't.

The discussion of "short of lying" becomes a bit more problematic.

I bulked at
Nor does the statement I do affirm — e.g., “I have twenty dollars in my pocket” — imply any statement that attributes a belief to me.

and yet:
I provide you with a reasonable basis for supposing that I believe there is twenty dollars in my pocket.

Frankfurt says that asserting one has twenty dollars in ones pocket does not imply that one believes one has twenty dollars in one's pocket, but that a reasonable person might so judge.

But consider what Moore might say: is would be inconsistent to assert "I have twenty dollars in my pocket, but I do not believe I have twenty dollars in my pocket". — Banno

Without Moore's addition, it makes sense: the listener has no way of knowing whether Frankfurter has 20 bucks in his pocket. If Frankfurter swears on his mother's grave, crosses his heart, and sells his soul to Satan on the spot in front of you to witness it, you still haven't got an assurance that he has $20 in his pocket.

If you add Moores statement, you merely create a nonsensical situation. I think Moores' addition would be more accurate this way: "I have twenty dollars in my pocket, but you may believe or not that I have twenty dollars in my pocket." It is not my, Frankfurter's belief that is at stake; but his audience's.

There was a time when a (wo)man showed up and said something and everyone believed s/he was saying the truth.

That was the time from grade 1 through grade 4;
That was the time of Western movies;
That was the time of heroes and villains;
That was the time I was happy because I felt my trust had not been betrayed.
That was the time before differentiation appeared big time. Differentiation in values and opoinions of opinions; not just differentiation between objects and other objects, between people and other poeple.

Duty to love? I don't get it. Can you elaborate? I thought it was attraction, compatibility and apparent availability (or imagined) that makes people fall in love.

What is this duty? To the king, to country and to god?

Kierkegaard must have been gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay, it's simply a preference. I just merely suggest that if someone considers boning a young beautiful wife a duty, then he ought not to have married her.

You forgot the L in metal physical. Metal is physical. I believe metal exists as in "physics".

I can bullshit you all day long, without any whiff of air or my nose being up.

I am not the only one capable of this 'round here in these parts... although the more passionate ones believe in theirs, so I am not sure if it counts as such.

Does Love exist? If yes, what is it?

Benkei
2.2k
↪god must be atheist Scientism.

I didn't know it was physically possible to both suck and blow at the same time but well done. — Benkei

Please don't do this.

Sanctimonious nonsense. There still is no political will to solve this problem. Greta is doing a lot more in getting political interests aligned to actually do something about it than you ever will. The hubris to suggest your ostrich politics of denialism are part of the solution is simply laughable. — Benkei

Please stay away from insults. Your post contained one argument (political solution must be found) and seven insults.

That is not right. This can only lead to flame war, which is not my cup of tea.

Please stick to philosophical terms, since this is a philosophy forum. You must state your point with reason backing them up, not insults and personal attacks.

Sorry, but what you wrote is not acceptable to me.

There still is no political will to solve this problem. — Benkei

If you want to solve something physical with political, good luck to you.

The solution ought to have a scientific, technological solution, not a political one.

that's one of the biggest fallacies of real life: people getting political over science. They figure if more and more people vote for less gas emissions, it will happen. Sanctamonious nonsense. It is only technology and science that can solve that problem, not votes.

Sometimes I wonder...

Almost certainly.

Which is it?

You are promoting a question that is the main thrust behind every moral decision, since Immanuel Kant has walked the Earth. Is the means more important than the outcome, or the other way around?

This is a question that can't be satisfactorily answered in terms of these two polarities.

You are asking the same question, and ask us to help you in deciding it.

Nobody can decide it. For you, you can decide it. From a logical view, nobody can say with authority of reason that manipulating for a good cause is bad or good.

So sorry if you did not know this. I did not mean to insult you. I just figured that everyone on a philosophy forum would have a modicum of knowledge of moral philosophy.

don't misunderstand me, please. This is not a sin or an offence that you did not know. Ignorance is nearly not as bad as stupidity on a philosophy forum. Those who do not know, can be taught and they can learn; the stupid can't

So I wasn't dissing you or your topic, although it certainly looked like it. I just wanted to point out to you that this is an udecidable question, once someone paraphrased it and pared it down to its bare bones.

I'm saying people should stop announcing the end of times. — Tzeentch

Right, I agree.

And they should also stop trying to find a specific group to blame for their endtimes Armageddon scenarios. Real or imagined.

Are you seriously suggesting her "shit" is in any way comparable to the people who are to blame? — Benkei

WE are all to blame, Yes, I am saying that. And if you want to not believe that, then you are also propagating hate, trying to identfify a group to blame, and sending them eventually to crematoria.

That is wrong.

We have to find a solution; blaming and hating is not the way. That is just venting and throwing tantrums.

The damage has been done. Now we have to undo the damage. Do you think propagating hate and division is going to help any in the finding of the solution?

You and your kind, like Greta, would rather find a group to hate, than find a solution.

I am on the solution party. Go out, hate with Greta.

Manipulation is just a bad word for influencing; for convincing; for making.

You are making a moral dilemma out of it. You suppose that manipulating someone involves lies or else deception; lies or else deception are bad; the outcome is good. So is it worth lying (deceiving) for a good outcome, or should you not say lies, should you not deceive, and live with a bad outcome.

There are appreoximately 21345 forum threads dealing precisely with that. Making one more when there are tons out there is morally insane Not morally deplorable, or morally commendable, just morally insane.

So the reason language evolved, was to be used as language? I don't know how to read this except as a tautology, so I'm genuinely perplexed by what you're saying.

Or are you just, in a roundabout way, saying that language evolved for the purpose of communication? But this is just to repeat a take on the question the thread started with, without offering any interesting support for the idea. There isn't much content to the rest of the post — Snakes Alive

If langauge evolved, (which I don't believe it did) then it evolved as an aid to survival. If you could shout there is danger, that's an advantage. If you could shout there is danger in the shape of a tiger or in the shape of a landslide, that's even better. If you can shout to run to safety toward the mountain or toward the tree or toward the river (tigers don't like to get wet) then that's even better than that.

Little by little those things developed, that aided survival.

Eventually tribes would hold meetings on matters that affected the tribe; this would aid even better survival.

-----------

I think language evolution is a crappolo idea, anyway, much like evolution. I believe that the ancient man had access (or since stone age, with stone axes, he had axxess) to the Oxford Dictionary of Standard English Definitions, Synonyms and Antonyms. Therefore they could strive for world hegemony, since they had a lingua franca the English langauge; and the English spleaking world still hasn't given up that idea.

reaction to the sticker is nothing but a line separating those who give a shit and those who don't. — staticphoton

You are missing the point, Staticphotn. We are all keep on burning, no matter which side of the sticker line we are on. It does not matter whether one gives a shit or not. If you give a shit, you keep burning the fossil fuels. If you don't give a shit you keep on burning the fossil fuels. You are blind to this??

Fuck you Greta has nothing to do with whether her activism is valid or not. — staticphoton

Staticphoton, that's not valid. that's precisely what Fuck You Greta has to do with. I don't know where you live, but her entire activism is on blame throwing.

Everybody knows about tons of greenhouse gases and stuff. If you think you have just thrust light upon an unknown fact, you are mistaken.

it is precisely her activism that is dangerous -- seeking out a substratum of society to blame, and then persecute them.

That's what she is doing.

Those who keep burning fuel -- everybody is burning fuel until something better comes along.

Everybody is shitting the atmosphere -- you, me, Greta, everyone. You can't single out a single element that is not doing it.

So do please consider that Greta is a dangerous element. Nobody is disputing the green house stuff -- you would have to live on the moon or on Mars to not know about it.

She's not spreading knowledge, she's only spreading hatred. And hatred leads to dangerous things.

Unconditional love does not exist; so why is it so popular

... it's popular... because... it does not exist?

A little bit like god, or unicorns that you can ride like a horse over the skies, or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

that canary already died — Benkei

Most of the Canary Islands are under water.

did you know that there are no canaries on the Canary Islands? This is true.

And did you hear about the U.S. Virgin Islands?

There are no canaries there, either.

I view the slender males as marriage makers. People who arrange marriage. Matchmakers.

A good matchmaker, a professional one who has any ethical standards, won't screw his clients.

So the slender males may or may not release sperm, depending on their professionalism and on the ethical standards they observe.

I think the Biblical account is a good place to start. Velleman starts there, though as far as I'm aware he's not Christian — icor1031

I ain't no Christian, either, but I can criticize the bible too. I think Velleman was a Nordic Gods worshipper (Votan, DonotvoteAnne, Valhalla, Brumhilde, Broomhandle, etc.) to whom he had sacrificed his first wife. It was easier and waaaay cheaper than a conventional divorce.

You asked why the exposure creates shame. I think all that is connected to social conditioning. Some parts of the world showing your parts is not shameful. And sex has become a shameful activity ever since man feared overpopulation and critically limited availability of resources.

Man had to curtail its tendency to overpopulate the land beyond its capability to support the expanding population. Birth control was needed. Shame was one damned birth control pill.

think that generally speaking, we have become like people who have soiled themselves and are well satisfied to have done so. Smug about it, even. Of course we say "Fuck you, Greta." What else would someone happy to be in that condition say, to anyone who complains of the smell? — Ciceronianus the White

This is very true. But what we forget, is that we have ALL soiled ourselves. There are no humans who form any exception there. Greta included.

She's the typical person whose basic attitude is, "I soiled myself, too, but my shit don't smell".

We're all in it together. What I hate about these activists is that they are angry, but they direct their anger at a group, specifically, which does not exist... separately. "THEY don't care, we live in shit because THEY warmed up the world." Bullsack, she and everyone else on the planet is equally guilty, or equally non-guilty.

This can lead only, this specific-seaking hatred, into finding a scapegoat. And that is what I really resent she's trying to do.

Blonde, blue-eyed, fair, tall and muscular Germanic people have proved over the last century that they are very, very good at creating and finding scapegoats.

This is why I hate ficking Greta. She's doing it the worst possible way. "You destroyed my childhood." Like shit, we did. We just lived. Given a chance, she'd have lived, too.

An old Hungarian puzzle for kids:

"What's the difference between a sparrow?
?
Both of its wings are identical, especially the left one."

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

Someone said that if we count position and placement, then eSPECIALLY can't two objects be the same.

It is conceivable, however, that the wardrobe chest I just got delivered to my house made of compressed wood contains two identical wardrobe chests, both occupying the same space at the same time and in the same respect.

1. No report to report, but I read that in Quantanimo Bay the prisoners tortured wear clothes, hoods, their hands tied behind their backs, and wear some discomfort-shoes and other accessories, but one thing the reporter who wrote the report did not notice at first, only it dawned on him, that each prisoner had their pants cut so that their enitre penis was visible.
2. This is not a formal philosophical treaty, but the bible, in particular, genesis, talks a great deal about how the first humans were shamed by their own primary sexual characteristics, after they ate the forbidden fruit.
3. In a Simpsons' episode, Homer defiles the founder of the boy's club he finally gets elected into by way of his father having been a member. He has to pull the stone of shame (a huge rock boulder) across town, totally naked, it being tied to his balls. Then, while naked, it is revealed that he has the birth mark that prophetically makes him the absolute ruler of the club. Now he has to pull the stone of honour, which is twice as big in diameter (and 9 times as heavy) as the stone of shame, across town, tied to his balls, naked.

No sweat. You actually had said what you claimed you had said. No breach there. You had said "Google claimed" etc. So you are perfectly all right.

Well one answer (the wrong answer) is we can go on dividing forever by 2 (say) so there must be an actual infinity of reals in the interval.

But we can only go on dividing forever in our minds - if we tried this in reality, we'd never finish dividing (process goes on forever - we'd never finish) - so the possibility of infinite division is just a figment of our imagination (like its possible to levitate in your imagination - but not in reality). — Devans99

You are rejecting the idea of "forever" which translates to "infinitely long time". So you reject the very concept of infinity because your premise rejects the very concept of infinity.

We've been down this road once before. ("What time does the clock show that has been going on since infinite time.")

If you can't imagine it, fine. But arguing that infinity does not exist because you can't imagine it is on hand a weak argument, on the other hand, a subjective argument.

What is the difference between actual infinity and potential infinity?

I'll attempt to answer the actual question.

In my opinion it's 37.54, but my uncle here says 289, and my aunt insists it's only 9.

This is worth a discussion in its own right, but not the intended topic of discussion. — NOS4A2

I take your word for it, so I won't dispute it any longer. I'm just humongously surprised, that's all.

At any rate, never tell a computer science student what he can't do.

The term “Quantum Supremacy” was coined in 2012 by John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at Caltech, to describe the point at which quantum computers can do things that classical computers cannot. — NOS4A2

So... we have computing power now that have been thought to be achievable only with quantum computers, but we have them without having quantum computers... presumably because the criteria has been met some other way, using non-quantum computers.

That's news to me. But then again, I ain't no scientist.

Or else quantum computers are here, and BestBuy sells them for $299.99.

Nobody said a word of Google's claim of achieving quantum advantage.

They have not.

We quabble about a word, we argue the emotional strength of expressions, but nobody pays attention to the actual claim.

We are so human. (Except for me. I am not.)

The solution is to allow people free access to the river. — Pfhorrest

Finally the libtard stratum of society would gain full employment. What with the predicted water shortages, the "cry me a river, Liberal" would be no longer a derogatory put-down, but a real, urgent and perhaps desparate plea.

For the record, I'm a Canadian, and anyone, even the extreme far right voter here, is left of the lefternmost voter in the USA as far as political ideals are concerned.

Education has been seen as this quasi-holy savior that solves nearly all problems in society. — ssu

Agreed. Case in point: in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a chronic unemployment situation. Gov's idea to solve it? In Canada? To teach people good and better job hunting skills, interview skills.

This was the stupidest thing they could think of. Sure, people would be better educated in the arts of getting a job, but everyone would be. But everyone was better educated, so nobody would be advantages. Worse yet, for the 10 jobs there were 10,000 better skilled people to apply, which meant only 10 got the job, much like it would have happened before, before the education took place.

Of course, there maybe very good reasons why teaching the poor job-skills will fail to produce the desired results but I just feel that...


If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime
— Anonymous — TheMadFool

You are American, are you, @TheMadFool?

Note: I am not saying that these patterns indicate free will. I am just saying that microeffects can affect the movements and actions of macro-organisms. — Coben

In a way that's true.

Ain't nobody got time to read this whole thread, but I'm curious if anyone has brought up the causal closure of physics yet? I.e. that a physical thing is by definition anything that has any physical effect, so whatever it is that is causing the physical effects we see definitionally is physical, and something nonphysical, by definition, has no effect on anything physical. — Pfhorrest

Yes. Banno said something to the effect, but maybe it wasn't him but someone else.

This whole thread would be interesting if it weren't so boring. I mean, the protagonist of the thesis in the OP is a contrarian, but opposed to the normal and expected, he is a religious contrarian. Funny combination. I think he said somewhere that he's an atheist. But I could be mistaken, because 9 out of 10 respondents who sound like staunch Christians, are self-confessed atheists. They just believe in god, but they are atheists nevertheless, they say.

This is a funny website, except people are soooo serious.