absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' — universeness

I think what he meant was that there is information out there that we haven't yet obtained. Bigger truths that contextualised our differences of opinion.

. I would agree that 'absence of evidence is not proof of absence.' — universeness

And in what way does one "prove" something? I think it's with evidence no? The empirical.
So proof of absence is what in this case but lacking evidence to do so.

There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial — universeness

There isnt? Are you sure?

When i invent/construct in my mind a fantasy. There is no evidence for that fantasy existing except for me (the beholder of the fantasy contained in my mind - the immaterial, inaccessible to anyone else unless I speak. My. Mind).

The minute I write it down as a novel. It becomes real. Something physical that people can read and interpret/read/appreciate. I have shared my creativity and imagination with the world in that case. Something that was once private and inaccesible to anyone else.

. I know that + and 'and' are conflated together in many ways. — universeness

They're not conflated per se just dynamic in utility. Conflation denotes erroneous association. It's just that "and" can = "+" but doesn't have to. As you pointed out.
One and two equals three.
One and two equals twelve.
Bob and elsa go..
And another thing...
And what?
And so forth.

All uses of "and" above mean something different.

At a very general, basic and definitive meaning "and" means "combined" or "put together". How or what it puts together is open to interpretation.

Maths is great for discrete logic but not for explaining more abstract (non discrete) concepts. That's where Ands flexibility of use comes in.

What I was saying is that the whole set of the material can be considered as discrete (it's a whole set of things). The whole set of immaterial can also be made discrete as it is a (whole set of things). And thus my Duality proposal is set on that basis.

That if we want to know the truth about the material, immaterial and the interaction between them then we must do some addition and sum to the "universal". Like a Venn diagram.

Venn diagrams can be applied to sets of numbers: primes, powers, multiplications etc. But they can equally be used for abstract concepts to generate relationships between them that are informative of their definitions relative to one another.

The underlined part above puts me into deadlock. To know what mass is, I have to know what energy is and to know what energy is I have to know what mass is, — universeness

I recommend factoring in space (distance) and time.
Oh look that relationship appears to be speed. The speed of light - energy. (C) :P
And we are right back at Einstein equation.

Energy and matter both have mass. Energy's mass is potential mass and matters mass is actualised mass (matter).

. An actuality akin to madness where you are being watched, your thoughts are controlled, and they will be coming to get you.
1d — introbert

Madness or martyrdom in the pursuit of truth. Have we not had a lot of truth seekers that we're assassinated for being too "threatening".

Who is the truth "too threatening" for? That's the real question. Is it the wealthy? Or is it the most influential? Or is it those with the most to lose? Or is those that fancy themselves as Gods?

Does ones abundance equal anothers poverty? And is this fair? Or would one receiving the greatest reward have to constantly uphold a reality for all in which is was theirs by birthright? By decree? By divine will? I think these are phrases we have come across in the past/history.

Who said them?

What do you think? How could we move forwards and make the internet become the fantastically positive tool it could be — universeness

Well the issue is its already a fantastical positive tool for those that use it to its best. The issue is that all fantastical positive things have a downside.
Antibiotics are fantastical positive rescuers of people from bacterial infections that previously killed us. The downside - antibiotic resistence and suoerbugs.

Democracy - another fantastical positive tool when used correctly, downside is it can be navigated by misinforming voters with propaganda into a false sense of unbiased and objective decision when in fact not all options have been presented on the ballot. Tyrannies can only arise out of democracies. And democracies can only arise by revolt/overthrowing tyrannies.

So long as there are selfish or evil agendas in the world they will try to manipulate good systems in their favour.

It is the perogative of an ethical person to mitigate the downside as much as humanly possible. By being just as clever.

As for the Internet, it will always have a sinister market. The issue is that regulation (mitigation of all the nasty going on) lags far behind the rat race for power. Because it can only legislate against new crimes/abuses. Not one's that don't yet exist.

There is a leading edge to progress which is selfish in nature, finding loop holes. Those loops holes are only closed when identified, at which time they're up and running.
So it seems the Internet reflects the global human conscience. The only way to tackle it on a personal level is to educate people better, ask them not to be well... D*cks. And then legislate when the inevitabkle happens - some of them being d*cks.

(as you see I have up on the formal language we once argued about with some weeks ago) lol

A+B and A and B. One is a calculation and the other is a propositional logic question.
I don't see the value is equating + with 'and.' — universeness

Not neccesarily.
One and two equals three. Two pieces of eight of pie and six pieces of the same eight equals a whole pie.

Maths can be written linguistically. It's slower, less efficient but nay say impossible.
So if the reverse is true we should be able to make the immaterial and the material into summable concepts

I suspect that's what e=mc2 was doing. I just don't think many people understand it

E=MC squared, we don't know what E or M physically IS. We can't see the feathers and the gold. — universeness

We do know what M physically is because it's matter (it quite literally by definition "physically is".

So by that fact we ought to know what energy really IS.
The only thing standing in the way is (C2). So should our focus not be on that?

Science does not know what energy materialistically IS. — universeness

Hmm I think Einstein begs to differ. Energy is equivalent to matter. "E=M" (x c^2) The only difference is a function of light speed.
If a few grams of hydrogen are converted to energy the energy release is massive. Because (c^2) is a massive exponent.

Atomic explosion massive. However matter can never be 100% converted to energy this way as always has byproducts (helium) in the case of nuclear fusion (nuclear bombs).

I can't say for the case of a blackhole/singularity if matter is completely covered back into pure potential energy as we do not know exactly what happens within a blackhole because of space, time and gravity and the event horizon they create in interaction with one another.

You mentioned 'bullying.' Anonymity is a big internet issue. Do you think you should be able to post anonymously? Should anonymity only be allowed when the possible response may be your own personal endangerment? — universeness

Anonymity offers dissonance/uncoupling between the actions made (written/expressed etc) and the consequences applied.
As with all things that can be good and/or bad.

In anonymity one can call out, say, the abuse of their employer without having personal repercussions pressed on them.

But in anonymity someone can also bully without reproach.

Anonymity can be protective to a victim but can also be protective to the aggressor.

The anonymity of two parties can only be preserved by full transparency to a third party which can gather the facts about the conflict and make a decision as to who is owed the apology. If one is owed at all.

Hence why in school bullying a principle will tend to meet the two people individually, or in a court hearing depositions are made separate to one another. It allows a person to be more honest to an uninvolved/unbiased third party. Because their safety is not directly under threat when acting through a third.

A and B = false — universeness

Agreed. However could A + B (summed total) =true? What remainder would that leave behind? Have we considered all when we united A and B ? Consciousness, the material and the interaction between the two?

I a cough out the word dualism/relativism again here. Because I think dualism trumps two opposimg monism.

You don't touch the fire because it's hot. This in no way implies that there is energy there. You need a premise which relates being hot to being energy, in order to conclude that being hot implies energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

My premise is "Ouch that f*@king hurt.

Physicist why did it hurt?"
Physicist :" because it contains a lot of kinetic energy (heat)"
Me: Ah okay so hot (subjective/my experience of heat) =energy, and that energy is being transferred to my hand by "kinesis" (movement)?"
Physicist:" yes that's right, movement from molecule to molecule. Which you can measure with your hand or an instrument.
Enter Metaphysician: "you can't imply that reasoning. You need a premise.

I just gave you one. I suffered a burn. Someone told me don't do that again. I asked why and they said because of the heat (energy moving).
My premise for energy being hot is an ethical one.

If you don't believe it go put your hand in the fire and measure it yourself. Tell me what you feel.

Or don't, and we can just assume that energy is hot as a decent conclusion. And things with more energy in them are hotter (furnaces, nuclear bombs, sun, supernovae etc).

I'm quite tired now of arguing with you. So I'm gunna go. I don't agree with all of what you said. At most i can concede that if you're entirely a materialist puritan then that would stand. But leaves little room for ethical basis for truth about energy.

Am I correct in assuming that at this stage in the argument your only motivation is to prove me wrong? That's fine if you want to. But we would literally be here argueing forever so Ima stop now. Endless unresolved argument is not in much of anyone's interest. I value your time and mine.

Best of luck with it.

It’s funny how panpsychists always want proof for a materialist view of consciousness when there’s zero for panpsychism — GLEN willows

On the contrary the hard problem of consciousness lies between the two opinions as to what consciousness is. So the zero proof of the wholly panpsychic is the same zero proof of the wholly materialist. The hard problem. How to connect the two: consciousness and body.

And I proposed dualism. That the (pseudo) dichotomy is based on the set of conditions standardised (preassumed as constants).

In materialism collective, the presupposed constant is objective observation. "See it to believe it". But who's doing the seeing eh? And who's applying the ethics to scientific practices of objectification? The mind is. The immaterial. It's governing how science can prove things (through ethics). So if we are to apply science to consciousness: scientific method is unlikely to work, unless we do something unethical because you cannot objectify (reveal) the entirety of a person's mind, their consciousness- all their memories, experiences, traumas etc that go to make up their awareness.

It would be an invasion of privacy. Wouldnt it?

In the opposite schools of thought: the presupposed constant is "I believe it therefore I see it." - supposing that our previous assumptions (beliefs) dictate what we can consider (see).

For example in jumping to conclusions, misinterpreting peoples intentions or words, distrust/ skepticism.etc . All processes derived from the influence of our assumptions on interpretation of incoming communication.

If I for example assume the belief "nobody likes me I'm lonely" then I will only be able to consider "the empirical evidence/observations" that upholds that assumption - all those things that people did/do that proves I'm alone.

By doing that we are placing less weight/value or outright dismissing the observations that would suggest otherwise unless I were to reassess the belief I assumed in the first place.

So it seems neither materialism nor mentalism/psychism/immaterialism either have the upper hand. In combination however they seem more insightful.

Fully materialist views cannot explain ethics and yet are under its full control on how they are allowed to investigate materially.
Whilst mentalism/psychism is easily deluded if it sees what it wants to based on false beliefs.

A combination leads to someone who believes what they observe (current state of affairs) but wishes to observe what they believe (make a change). Whether that's ethical or not is another question.

No-one should be killing themselves as a direct result of their experiences on the internet.
Is a personal walled garden system a feasible way forward or even the beginnings of one?
If not, what controlled, secured individualised 'view' (if any) of the internet would YOU support?
Let's leave the issue of 'who' would create/enforce that 'personalised view' for now. Let's concentrate on the 'what' for now? 'What' would you include in an internet view/access for 5 to 12 years olds? or teenagers or '60+ years of age?' — universeness

Agreed. No one should ever be a victim of a mass attack to the point of suicide. Its desperate and we as parents or future parents can only think "what if that was my son or daughter? ". That prospect of the Internet terrifies me.

I will have to think for a bit on the questions you asked here. They're not easy ones. I'll get back to you shortly :)

I think it's very necessary/interesting/important, perhaps even vital to debate the issue of the internet and the immense, perhaps even the most significant power there is on the planet today, which affect people's world viewpoints. BUT we really do all have to think about how this incredible power to influence people should be controlled/wielded.
Right now, it seems to me, that's its currently like a delivery system that can reach so many people so quickly that its power to spread positivity or negativity is equally in capability.
The fact that its power is currently underappreciated and uncontrolled and in the hands of a nefarious looking few is of great concern. — universeness

Exactly.
There are those that would continue to use the Internet harmlessly for comedy, deep dives, curiosity and knowledge. And are fairly smart, productive and reasonably immune to misinformation. They are not the problem per se.

Then there are those that pass on suspicious information and theories and possibly propaganda as well as some wholesome stuff because they're easily influenced and go with the flow (of information). And just don't think for themselves (don't know how or don't have the confidence) but rather look to others for approval or validation of what they ought to think or pass on.

Then there's those that really are up to no good and use the Internet for pure propaganda, insighting of hatred, spreading harmful regimes and beliefs and ignorance etc. These are the problem.

Now imagine they are all mixed up together with no way to regulate or divide them up.

This. This is the Internet.

How would YOU control access to online info? What methods would you use? — universeness

Okay so instead of a free for all where you can say just about anything to anyone anywhere in the world.

Imagine that what you say (still free to say anything) based on some category gets automatically "cced" to the relevant people.

Imagine for example a childhood bully posts an exposing and inappropriate photo of his victim.
The post would automatically be sent to the victims parents, the bullies own parents, the school, whoever is deemed responsible for that child's wellbeing and the bullies actions.
One would imagine online school bullying would come to a hault pretty abruptly.

Consequences eh? They aren't so nice to acknowledge.

The issue is, that requires an AI with Emotional intelligence running the Internet.

An algorithm with the ability to identify potentially harmful content quickly and accurately based off an assessment of the sender and recipients personality types (so as to not misconstrue self deprecation/comedy/humour) as harmful. And then take out a guardianship role to protect the vulnerable.

The irony is we already have such an entity - a sentient being, a person.
We are already equipped with emotional intelligence and the ability to tell if something is harmful, so why isn't it working?

There's a few issues why.

One is "cohesion" . When you mix people of all different regions, cultures, political beliefs in a single online argument about one simple, specific thing, no matter how mundane, it is just chaos. A riot of opinions and personal attacks left right and center.

For an issue to be contextually addressed (like a child getting Bullied in school) it must be done so from context. The Internet lacks context and you get opinions like (well girls should be quiet in class (from places where women's freedom is oppressed) , or she was asking for it? From someone accross the world that has no idea what's going on, or maybe she should wear longer clothes (from a Conservative) and how she dressed is irrelevant. It's about bullying (from some liberal feminist somewhere perhaps).

Two - "virality." Information travels too fast on the Internet. Virality can be good - to make someone popular, famous, recognised. But it can also be bad - to make someone a scapegoat, play Chinese whispers, gossip and completely self propel a vicious cycle of abuse.

Three - "Accountability" as I said earlier. These are serious problems we need to somehow address simultaneously if we want to maintain freedom of speech but protect the vulnerable at the same time

In essence it will be about establishing truth on the Internet. The truth as to who is spreading lies and gossip to harm someone, the truth as to the identity/character/personality of the vulnerable person/ victim and truth as to the fact that its not tolerated to victimise helpless/innocent people and a serious apology and explanation is required.

How would YOU control access to online info? What methods would you use?
What actually works and is very hard to circumnavigate?
What would achieve the honourable goal of protecting the vulnerable?
It seems very dangerous and foolish to suggest that no controls at all, is the best we can do. — universeness

Great questions Universeness.
I think the primary issue with the Internet is the fact that it's a non-physical (meta) dumping ground of any and every thought possible.

I have seen the same people that behave socially and well mannered in public spew malicious and sinister content online. I suspect because a). they know it won't ever be tracked back to them/it's cowardly and b). They cannot engage with the facial expressions/the hurt/impact of what they say, and so it's harder to empathise.

"If one has something to say, say it to my face". And such.

In society we have a body. We are particulate. People can locate us as a source of nastiness. So the consequences of behaving this are very real.

Online we have no body and can pop up anywhere like some random quantum blip, new profiles registered only for a day to commit some trolling. So it doesn't feel real (real subjects with emotions) to us and we can thus objectify everyone.

Censorship on the Internet need not come from limiting speech, but from effectively tying online persona to in person persona. So that whatever someone says they actually mean because they know it could impact their job, their personal relationship with friends, their education, their day in a courtroom etc.

Am I coming across as so extremely intelligent that I appear to be God or something like that? — Metaphysician Undercover

Odd question. But yes you seem to be so certain of your belief and determined to rationalise it that anyone like myself - who thinks the laws of thermodynamics that underpin a large portion of physics are true, is by default absurdly uncomprehending/ irrational/worthy of argueing down until they either agree or give up. Are you that knowledgeable that you do indeed know everything or is there perhaps the chance that I too may know what I'm talking about. Whether you ever even considered it or otherwise.

The belief that those thermodynamic principles are true are the foundation from which we have standardised and built virtually all newtonian physical laws and formulas.

So if they are false to ordinary lifes physical parameters how did we do that?

How did we gain such predictive power, knowledge and technology based off something fundamentally incorrect? It doesn't seem to be coherent. Falsities/delusions do not lend themselves to progress/advancement of understandings when accepted as a premise for further research. Right?

I think rather than the the thermodynamic laws being absolutely and definitively true or absolutely and definitively false as we argued, they may be a subset of a larger Duality. Relativism.

And thus relativity stands to reason because newtonian physical formulas begin to break down in special relativity and all of its implications - black holes etc. But only then.

If you want to deny the existence of newtonian physics and its achievements or relativity and its one's in order to prove that thermodynamics is not binary but absolutely and discretely false, be my guest.

What you have argued for based on the falsity of thermodynamics laws is rationally consistent throughout your argument and well composed. But it is confined to Materialism - We can only infer the existence of energy from measurement/ calculation of other physical things.

However what I argued, that you don't need to measure energy to know it's there - and I gave a first person account to prove that - I don't touch fire coz it's hot as. I don't need a maths degree or calculations or formulas or standardisation to know that a fire is releasing thermal energy that I can feel (personally measure/estimate).

So again.. Let's agree to disagree. Because you have validity. And I have validity. From fundamentally different perspectives which I doubt can ever be proven to one another whilst holding opposing assumptions. They're just the dualistic nature of energy.

I can't believe that you cannot grasp what I am telling you, — Metaphysician Undercover

Believe it lol. As I said "agree to disagree" here seems to be the best way to leave it for the time being.

One cannot directly measure the energy of something, and I don't see why you can't understand this. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I put my hand up towards a fire I cannot measure that it gives off energy (thermal energy)? I must make a calculation? Hardly. Yes I can't calculate the exact joules my hand absorbs per second just with my hand, but I can definitely measure the energy of the fire inaccurately with the general term "warm". (warmer than the surroundings/exothermic).

except a clear indication that you do not understand the principles involved. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your principles yes. I don't understand them as we already highlighted at the beginning that our two approaches to the laws of thermodynamics are fundamentally opposed. So why would we agree?

You said they're false. I disagreed. Then you used their falsity as the premise for your argument while I used their veracity as the premise for mine. And now you "can't believe that we are still arguing?" shocker.

How to be a better criminal (100 tips to escape justice).
The terrorist/freedom fighters tool kit.
How to control people.
Best ways to kill yourself.
Why the white way is the right way — universeness

Out of interest I think the reason these wouldn't be condoned is they're biased. By focusing on the negative while not offering the other point of view they suggest that the other side doesn't exist and can't be chosen.

For example if I posit these alternative titles are they more palatable?

"How criminals escape justice and how justice escapes being criminal. 100 flaws with legal systems and 100 flaws of the people that abuse them".
"Terrorist verses freedom fighter. What's the difference? A discourse."
"How to control people and thus how to recognise when you're being manipulated". (I'm sure politicians already have this book lol).
"the ways people kill themselves and why they do it."
"How white supremacy emerged and what it has done to society".

I think these are more balanced topics that don't use their title as a biased assumption.

If something is actually "true knowledge" then it can be used equally for good as it can for bad.

Every coin has two faces.

Only revealing one side of the coin is not ethical - its just "propaganda/agenda based" knowledge.

You're still wrong Benj96. Voltage is a measurement of electric potential — Metaphysician Undercover

So, physics defintion of Electric potential: the amount of "work needed to move a unit charge from a reference point to a specific point against an electric field.

Physics definition of" work": In physics, work is the "energy" transferred to or from an object via the application of force along a displacement.

Oh gosh look what we have arrived at? So it seems electric potential is, hmm, energy. Who knew? Physics did.

Which retrospectively confirms my reasoning about measurement devices requiring not only energy to run them, and energy to be them (matter, bonds, forces that hold its molecules together), and what do they measure? Energy.

It seems like you don't really want to attempt to consider any alternative explanation as you had your own answer (assumption) from the beginning.

Out of curiosity, if energy is "wasted" or "disappears" or somehow "ceases to exist" as you say, then where did it come from in the first place? Are you proposing that energy just spontaneously comes into existence also?
If not it would mean that time is finite as is the existence of the universe, and it will simply wind down to a heat death.

What happens then? An eternity of non existence/no universe. I think if that's the case it seems exceedingly improbable that we even exist now in the one "blip" of finite and ending universe that will ever occur.

To me it makes more sense that the universe is a cycle of expansion and contraction with heat death/the end being =to the beginning at the big bang.

But hey let's just agree to disagree. You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you so why endlessly argue about it eh?
Best of luck with it.

bravo Russell A. I agree. We can only observe the workings of another's mind through how they react to the world around them. We cannot feel what they feel, but we can infer from their behaviour why they behaved thus. Such is the basis of empathy.

For me the physical and the mental (abstract) are interchangeable. Such that I can take an idea (whatever it may be) and manifest it in the physical via poetry, art, invention/innovation or emotive speech, rhetoric, philosophy.

It seems then that the creativity of the mind and the actual are mutually dependent. The ideals we hold within out mental landscape can be made physical through expression. And in the same way the physical can be assumed into the mental as interpretations

With technology, we don't have to draft people into a war and that makes it much easier to hook us into wars that we can carry on without disturbing our daily lives. — Athena

Does the technology not get used against civilians though? A drone dropping a bomb on a city may not be a human pilot, but the people the bomb is dropped on are still civilians all the same.

If the drone drops explosives on a purely technological and automated post then that is better in that people were not involved. But sadly tech operations and people (engineers/programmers/installers) are not inseparable. The tech doesn't arise out of thin air, so human victims are always a potential.

What a delicious subject! :nerd: The historical Roosevelt family would certainly agree with you. “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” — Athena

Andrew Carnegie was as morally compromised as Doctor Jeckly and Mr. Hyde. He talked a good talk about the dignity of man and was known as a philanthropist, but when it came to the reality of economic competition he took the wrong side of the coal miners' fight for fair wages. He was cutthroat when it came to getting rich. At the time the science of Darwinism made our industrial reality very ugly, with the elite believing they were superior and entitled, and that created a terrible reality of using and abusing laborers. But Andrew Carnegie met your criteria of benefitting society. — Athena

Fascinating Athena. I never knew about the Roosevelt families philosophy. Thank you for highlighting it for me.

My family is among these people who did not make the effort to be educated — Athena

Oh that's a shame. Perhaps you are the new enlightened family member that shows them how the world works and how to empower themselves to lead a more fruitful life?

Education can be be recieved from others or from the self (through rigorous/thorough and balanced observation - all things considered).

We ought to listen to wise teachers. And when our wisdom parallels or overcomes theirs, we ought to offer it in turn to those less educated. It's our duty to give those tools to the ones without them, level the playing field as it were. Restore the balance to avoid exploitation.

Actually, energy is not something measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

It definitely is. If I punch a punchbag at a fairground, the force of the impact (the momentum of my arm) is measured digitally in a number scale. Which can be compared to others - maybe a professional boxer.

The measurement must use some of the energy in its measurement. Otherwise how exactly can it function as a measuring device? Are measuring devices somehow magically outside of all cause and effect relationships/energy transfer and the information those hold?

I don't think so.
The device converts kinetic force into a voltage and the measurement of that voltage is a measurement of the energy that generated (converted) into it.

You say, "it should equal...", and that is according to the law of conservation. The fact is, that it never does. That is the "waste" which was referred to in the statement of the second law which I provided. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes you're right the energy is released elsewhere than where the measurement tool is being used. Just like we argued about the room releasing heat to the environment.

What I'm saying is "wasted" because it wasn't measured is the wrong word.
It's gone elsewhere. Just because I can't measure every molecule of water that goes over niagara falls per second doesn't mean what I couldn't measure is "wasted"... "lost" "disappeared".

Heat disperses outwards and as it does it heats up the environment its spreading into, the further it spreads out the less amount it heats up each part. But it still heats them up by ever more minute amounts.
Absolute zero when reached is a timeless state of no change (no heat/kinetic motion) where all energy is only "potential" again. The exact same conditions as at the big bang. Alpha state = omega state

Well but I was referring to logically possible (consistent) worlds, not ideal ones. — litewave

Well if " more ideal/improved" realities or worlds are connected to the real/currently possible one (which is consistent), does that not mean that a truly ideal world would also be consistent? On an ethical and logical basis.

You can say your ideal world is where you can fly in the sky.
In the 1800s this is a logically impossible ideal and inconsistent with reality. Just a dream.
Now, we have several dozen versions of flying available to people: planes, helicopters, wing suits, powersailing, kites, balloons etc.

So it seems like the ideal is only referential to the real. When something new is realised, someone's ideal has been established (the inventors, the entrepreneurs, the author etc). Otherwise they wouldnt have chased it down/pursued that goal.

All goals are ideals. Some goals are not ethically consistent (having slaves) and some are not logically consistent (time travel backwards), but some are both logically and ethically consistent or becoming so (vaccinating impoverished people against malaria).

. You are the one being silly, suggesting that a mere infrared camera could capture all the energy lost from a room. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't say it could capture all the energy lost from the room did I? You interpreted such for some reason. It can measure that energy is being lost at an average rate from a small area and be inferred that given the insulation is the same around the room that all parts are roughly losing the same amount of energy per square meter.

In that way you can calculate with reasonable accuracy to account for the remaining heat energy you haven't picked up on the camera. And you can prove it by reference to the dropping temperature within the room. You can say okay at this rate the room will drop by 1 degree celcius every 30 minutes until it reaches ambient (outside) temperature.

You have cited exactly zero examples of an experiment in which all of the energy available prior to an event has been accounted for after the event. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's called a calorimeter. Put a piece of food or something in a box (chemical energy), weigh its initial mass.
Burn it fully, measure the temperature rise + the change in weight of the ashes/gases now contained in the box.

Sum the heat released (energy) with the remaining masjids (energy) and it should equal the sum of the mass and chemical energy of the original food.

Your example of an infrared camera is simply ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please re-read what I actually said and not jump to conclusions I never made. I've already explained about the infrared camera measuring a local defined area of a homogenous wall. Then calculating out (because the wall is homogenous - the same material, its logical to assume the same material will lose heat at the same rate).
In that way you can establish the rate of heat loss for the whole surface area of the room. And you can verify that by predicting the temperature drop inside the room/unit time.

If the temperature in the room drops as your calculation predicted. Then you have correctly accounted for the rate of energy loss for the whole room.

It's really quite basic maths. Please try not to misinterpret me so readily when I'm happy to offer a more descriptive and long winded explanation

So the conclusion is inductive, some energy is always lost. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is that the only inductive reasoning possible? It could be this case. But it could also be that not all the energy can be measured.

Does something not exist because it can't be measured?

Does my internal state of mind not exist to you because it cannot all be measured at once? Except by me - considering only I hold my memories, beliefs and emotions (my personal consciousness).

Kudos to David Lewis for saying out loud that there is no difference between a possible world and a "really real" world. — litewave

The "ideal" (potential to be) and the "real" (what actually is currently) are mutually dependent. The ideal is the goal whilst the real is what we have at our disposal to get there.
Utopia is brought into existence through advancement: taking current problems, making them a thing of the past, and then facing/challenging the remaining issues, working our way through what stands between us and our ultimate and deepest desire.

One can create a personal utopia, or they can attempt the behemoth task of creating one for everyone. The choice is up to the individual and how egalitarian they are in character. They may be unsuccessful but they can give it a go.

Hey Michael. There have been many gods in the past that had a specific character trait: Chronos/Kronos for example (god of time) - where we get the word chronological from.

Janus (god of motion), Uranus (god of the sky/space), Proteus (god of form/matter) and many more: morpheus (dreams), gaia (god of earth/mother nature), hermes (God of messages) these are mostly Greek gods but of course there have been thousands from all tribes and peoples throughout the ages.

What they have in common is that they are personifications of different perceptions/concepts of reality. Often having an ultimate god ruling them all (the brahman for example).

In that way we can see a sort of dualistic concept of God's based on magnitude/hierarchy. Polytheism as the branches of a universal monotheism, with different focuses placed by different cultures.

I think these were ways to appreciate realities components, with the overriding view that somehow consciousness pervades all things (hence justifying personification of abstracts like time, space, matter etc).

It seems that these people that upheld such beliefs all had the commonality of seeing the "self" in the things around them. That "self" was/is fundamental and has a scope, a spectrum, from the most minute to the largest thing (the universe).

when I am thinking, I know that I am thinking and not not thinking, and this is because, when I am not thinking, I still know, at least intuitively, that I possess the a priori potential to begin thinking; hence, I cannot deny the existence of thought without contradiction, and because that which thinks cannot possibly be non-existent, the fact that I think, and know that I think and have the potential to think, implies that I exist as a subject — TheGreatArcanum

You do exist as a subject indeed. Contradiction comes in the form of other existents - other subjects - that do not think the same way as you do.

At best you can execute your best reasoning and best ethical principles to convince them to relinquish their previous notions/beliefs.

But it's likely you will only be successful if your reasoning and moral are both sufficient to highlight how theirs may be inferior. The rest, is up to choice.

We cannot force others to believe what we believe, and simultaneously we must always hold a certain skepticism towards what we think, for it is just so easy, to embrace the temptation of certain delusions, we must always ask if what we think is a) rational and b). ethical, and argue with the open-mindedness to be proven otherwise and re-evaluate. No harm no foul.

I cannot think of any concrete contributions philosophy has made to our understanding of Creation/nature. It is interesting but not very useful. Only our faith in the Creator offers us any real hope for the world. IMHO. — Photios

Is philosophy not the contemplation of such a creator? Philosophy can (as far as I know) be applied to all human pillars of society - medicine, language, politics, education, science, faith.

Philosophy IMHO is the transcendence of all human spheres of thought. All disciplines. And thus the only true way to unite them, and elucidate the true nature of creation, reality and truth.

It is up to philosophers to work constructively (through discourse) to bind and solidify the meaning of what it is to exist. And what existence is. If they cannot do it, no one can.

Such is the broad scope of thought and its applications (philosophy).

If philosophy only raises new questions has science answered anything other than by way of discoveries that give philosophers more to ask questions about? — TiredThinker

In order to raise a new question a new assumption must first be established. Science lends its hand to concretising such assumptions. Philosophy takes what is learned and addresses the ethical and rational implications of that.

It is a "to-and-fro". A symbiosis. Without philosophy, science is blind to the ethical applications of its objective discoveries. Without science, philosophy can only merely speculate, is blind to the objectively rational.

A complimentary system indeed.

Contribution to what? Curiously, the list of the great and the good so far on the thread seems to leave out the philosophers of environmentalism, of feminism, of anti colonialism. It is surely not the business of the philosopher to contribute to society but to challenge it. It is not our business to answer to a miserable accountancy that cannot value anything except in terms of convention and complacent compliance. — unenlightened

You're right unenlightened. A philosophers role is indeed to challenge convention, to deduce where such convention would logically lead and inform the public on that impending outcome.

In this way philosophy is about navigating the "thought-scape" based on the assumptions of the collective (society) and reveal where that goes. To venture metaphysically down each path, before the physical has to make the choice. In that way philosophers may guide them, as our ancestors (chieftains, sages, druids, prophets, oracles, wise ones) have done so before us.

Philosophy is a guardian of informed choice. A neccesity. A passive one but a neccesary one.

Your contribution to philosophy exists so that physical contributions to error/misjudgement may not. Do not take your responsibility lightly.

;)

Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread. — universeness

I will always be in awe of such people: applying their intelligence and talents to revolutionising our fight against suffering. I will always commend them, their courage and persistence. Long live the good amongst us.

What?? I ain't into guilt or shame, baby! — Vera Mont

Haha that's the spirit :)

That's 1 out of 3.5 M unemployed.
The profit margin dictates replacing expensive employees with cheaper ones, more employees with fewer employees, at every step. — Vera Mont

It does. And that is how capitalism operates. I pointed it out as a demonstration of that fact. Not because I believe its the ethical thing to do.

My beliefs are that those at the top, ought to have the greatest sense of responsibility and duty to those at the bottom. Not an easy task for sure.

They must exert their knowledge and wisdom and position of power in an effort to serve the most vulnerable/uneducated and protect them from exploitation. They may not even enjoy the responsibility but see it as a duty they must rise to.

If at any point such a leader is not truly serving the foundation of their society, then they ought to resign and let those who are take over the wheel of the ship of humanity.

If one wants to speak for everyone, they had better be sure they have the skills to do so.

But to address it. I'd think the administration of justice in actual such cases will follow the trend they always do. That is, the system generally works, with some celebrated instances of injustice, with injustice typically more common among the poor and inadequately represented. — Hanover

Agreed Hanover. I do believe the judiciary system gets it right more often than it doesn't. It is afterall generated out of rigorous thought and "trial and error" (excuse the pun). They are just trying to do their best.

Injustices do occur and are celebrated - pointed to in arguments proposing the justice system is not flawless. I think this is important, as to lead the judiciary to believe they cannot be wrong would be dangerous indeed.

A healthy judicial system is one that can adapt when faced with unintentional injustice. Judges are elected (hopefully) by the people in their wisdom, to speak on behalf of the collective. But must be open to cases when the public disapproves of a sentencing and demands an appeal.

In otherwords, judges decisions must only be final if not contested by the majority or further evidence to the contrary. To reject that is to well... Make Gods out of judges - which are only men/women.