Probably there is no big difference, but I am not sure these two systems will always produce the same results. For me, the system I described is evidently optimal. — Linkey

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your quote. — Linkey

It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; — Linkey

For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. — Linkey

A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey

Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. — Linkey

Ranked choice voting is a process that allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference. Consider a race where four candidates – A, B, C, and D – are running for a single seat such as Governor. In an election utilizing RCV, voters simply rank the candidates 1-4, with the candidate ranked as “1” being the voter’s highest preference for Governor. If a candidate is the first choice of more than half the voters, that candidate wins the election. But if no candidate gets the majority of the vote, the candidate with the least amount of support is eliminated, the second choice support for that eliminated candidate are redistributed, and this process continues until a candidate wins more than half of the vote.

Published in 1924, Burtt's work explores how the shift to a scientific worldview in the 17th century was underpinned by (often unstated) metaphysical assumptions.

But I don't understand how anything Anderson says refutes a potentially physicalist understanding of the world. He refutes reductionism very well, but my attempt to invent a "best we can do now" version of physicalism was not meant to affirm reductionism, quite the contrary. — J

There is a conceptual understanding of "me" operating in the world. But the direct, first person realisation of being conscious precedes any other knowing, and is "absolute" in the sense that I don't need anything else for that. — Carlo Roosen

I was wondering, even while I do agree with the premises to some extend and it seems logically correct, I do not agree with the answer. — Carlo Roosen

The author's argument against scientism doesn't claim to show science is irrational, but rather that it's core principle (that the scientific method is the only way to render truth about the world and reality) cannot be established with the scientific method - which he asserts makes it self-defeating. — Relativist

Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle. And if it cannot even establish that it is a reliable form of inquiry, it can hardly establish that it is the only reliable form. — Relativist

• It's a formal system of study with established and documented methodology.
• The assumptions and presuppositions underlying that methodology are understood and acknowledged.
• The results are documented.
• Procedures for data reporting, reduction, verification, and interpretation are included in the system methodology.
• The results can be compared with observations in the real world and predictions made before the study takes place.

I have a number of friends who would, if pressed, probably deny that there's anything out there except the physical world. But nor would they claim that you can use the fundamental entities of physics to explain macro-phenomena like economic behavior. — J

Not necessarily. We can construct a sort of "best we can do right now" position that would go: "Sure, we have loads of unanswered questions about how physical realities interact, and how they can be causally effective. But at the end of the (scientific) day, I'm betting that the answers will still fail to reveal anything beyond the physical. We have to wait and see, but my money is on physicalism." — J

there are good arguments for the involvement of us humans in the establishment of reality,
— T Clark

Such as? — Wayfarer

an Aeon essay by Evan Thompson, Adam Frank and Marcello Gleiser — Wayfarer

the real challenge for physicalism is to explain the lawlike behaviors, if there are such, of the entities studied in psychology, sociology, history, literature – in short, the human sciences. — J

And if you responded by telling her that her discipline did not produce objective facts and theories, was in short not scientific, she would laugh at you, — J

So in order to defend physicalism, I think a philosopher has to argue for why physicalism is not reductive in the sense just described. — J

But I think that can be problematised by pointing out that while physicalism does provide a background context that is inviting towards scientific inquiry, none of the successes of science required physicalism– the scientific method and its accompanying tools being enough to do the job. — Baden

So, wherein lies the attraction of physicalism for scientists? The majority associate themselves with the doctrine, but why? Why not simply maintain metaphysical agnosticism? Is it simply because, as above, physicalism resonates with the idea of scientific inquiry? Is it just an honorary badge to display anti-idealist credentials? Do scientists generally even know or care what they’re committed to? — Baden

My central criticism is not that physicalism is wrong—it's unfalsifiable — Baden

2. Physicalism is unscientific.
The core metaphysical assumptions of most metaphysically naturalist / physicalist positions may be summarized as follows:

A. There is only one substance, that substance is physical and that substance encompasses all known and all potentially knowable phenomena
B. The universe is deterministic.
C. The universe is comprehensively and ultimately law-given and law-abiding. — Baden

The consequences of this apparent circularity are somewhat jarring. Physicalism does not really do away with the supernatural, but must presume there is some, in principle, discoverable law to account for it, and simply redefine it as natural as necessary. — Baden

Pragmatism over all. — Banno

This is presumably non-trivial. What empirical inference made from observation of the real world is involved? — Banno

it's a description made possible by those distinctions and observations. — Hallucinogen

How many do you have to have observed for your premise to be justified?
— T Clark

Just one. — Hallucinogen

There are things you can know independent of the 'real' world.

"I am conscious" is one. — Carlo Roosen

therefore 1 + 1 = 2 — Carlo Roosen

If we say "if 1) reality is determistic and 2) we have a free will, it follows 3) we exist outside reality". Where does this go wrong? — Carlo Roosen

Is it possible that with solid premises and correct logical steps, we cannot always accept the conclusion? — Carlo Roosen

The ontology of causation and contingency don't depend on our epistemology about them, or keeping track of them. — Hallucinogen

OK, the particles = the objects denoted by the terms. "Starting from zero" = beginning of the sequence. "Moving outward and bouncing off each other" = the transformations of the sequence. — Hallucinogen

Alright, could you provide more detail? — Hallucinogen

Things get messy when people use the same words within different contexts. I personally see philosophy as being one of those fields of interest that plays a large role in sorting out such messes, whilst often also exacerbating them! — I like sushi

Thinking is not "guided." Guided by whom?
— T Clark

'Goal Directed' would have been a better way of framing it. As in, merely having a sense of the word "gradation" as possessing the taste of "blackberries" is not really teleologically significant. — I like sushi

keep in mind that some people will not accept that 'thought' can exist without 'words'. — I like sushi

Empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence are close enough when dealing with subjective experiences in the real world. — I like sushi

It can be argued by some that this is not 'thinking' though because it does not appear to be guided ...this is precisely the bias some people hold (maybe correctly) regarding what we refer to as 'thought'. Which seems to be more or less what you are saying. — I like sushi

There is a psychologist (or cognitive neuroscientist/linguist?) who believes that ALL emotions exist only because we created words for them. — I like sushi

This means simply that the perceiving mind is an incarnated body, or to put the problem in another way, he enriches the concept of the body to allow it to both think and perceive. It is also for these reasons that we are best served by referring to the individual as not simply a body, but as a body-subject. — Kurt Keefner

(1) Existence is a series of entities and events.
— Hallucinogen

That is an assumption - an unsupported supposition. — T Clark

No, it's not an assumption. It's a description made possible by distinguishing events and observing entities appear and disappear as conditions change. — Hallucinogen

(1) Existence is a series of entities and events. — Hallucinogen

(4) If all entities are contingent, then there’s no necessary (non-contingent) entity. — Hallucinogen

There is no complete certainty, we round the numbers of reality by decimals. Trying to know as much as possible but never can every degree of accuracy be defined. It is simply infinity. Like the title says: "Facts, the ideal illusion". It is an ideal scenario to know things as facts, but calling it facts is the illusion many people tend to base their reality on. — Plex

you are confusing subjective experience with empirical data. — I like sushi

I have met several people who cannot think without words. I first became aware of this when my secondary English teacher told the class he could not think without words - had no subjective capacity to produce images and his dreams were purely auditory. Other people I have spoken to like this do have visual dreams but cannot perform the same visualisation when in a waking state. — I like sushi

A lot of people when pressed on this matter do sometimes 'pretend' to fit in. — I like sushi

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature. — Niels Bohr

So do you think low quality posts should not be moderated? Every time a low quality post is moderated are you going to come along and try to make an argument in favor of low quality posts? — Leontiskos

What makes you believe Carlo is? — fdrake

Please bear in mind that this discussion is public, given your prior comment expressing discomfort regarding public airing of related issues. — fdrake

"Nuclear crisis – 2024 and the strategy of a nuclear war" was not the greatest OP, — BC

Beyond the pale - Of a person or their behaviour: outside the bounds of what is acceptable, or regarded as good judgment, morality, ethics, etc.

From beyond + the + pale (“wooden stake, picket; fence made from wooden stakes, palisade; bounds, limits; territory or defensive area within a specific boundary or under a given jurisdiction”), suggesting that anything outside an authority’s jurisdiction is uncivilized.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there is insufficient evidence that the term originally referred to the English Pale, the part of Ireland directly under the control of the English government in the Late Middle Ages; or to the Pale of Settlement (Russian: Черта́ осе́длости (Čertá osédlosti)) which existed from 1791 to 1917 in the Russian Empire, where Jewish people were mostly relegated to living. The first attestation of this English translation of the Russian in the OED is 1890. — Wiktionary

You haven't provided anything of substance. Lots of opinionated fluff and vague assertions. — Heracloitus

Personal reflection on your own thoughts and experiences is not, on that basis alone, philosophy of mind. It is conversational in tone and almost devoid of philosophical content. Hence, lounge. — fdrake

ethology (a combination of the game theory with the theory of evolution) — Linkey

Roger Penrose has suggested that quantum effects are working in the nervous system of living organisms. Currently there is some experimental evidence in favour of this hypothesis: — Linkey

At first sight, it does seem unlikely that delicate quantum effects, such as coherence, tunnelling, entanglement or spin could play significant roles in a warm, wet, brain. However, the Nobel Prize winning UK mathematician, Roger Penrose, together with the American anaesthetist, Stuart Hameroff, made probably the most audacious claim for quantum biology in recent years in their proposal that quantum coherence in neuronal microtubules is capable of quantum computing and is the substrate for consciousness [371,372]. This proposal has generated a great deal of discussion and criticism [4], and it is fair to say that it has not received significant support in either the physics or neuroscience community and so will not be considered further in this review. — Quantum Biology: An Update and Perspective

If this is true, then we can assume that there is quantum entanglement between the brains of related individuals in nature; — Linkey