I think my question pervades the specific maths. It’s almost a metaphysical question- how can the pure simple number 10 defy it’s premise of even 1/2’s and 1/4’s at higher orders, while 12 follows the same rules of its higher orders? — Mp202020

I suggest questioning the idea of "it’s premise of even 1/2’s and 1/4’s at higher orders". Why think there is really anything to "defy"?

why do higher orders of base-10 divide evenly into 1/2 and 1/4 while the number 10 itself does not? — Mp202020

It's a simple matter of 4 being a factor of 12 but not of 10.

Consider:

10 = 2 * 5
100 = 10 * 10 = (2 * 5) * (2 * 5) = (2 * 2) * (5 * 5) = 4 * 25

This is a perfectly standard expedient lie, and there may be nothing that humans are more adept at than the expedient lie. — Leontiskos

Perfectly standard? I'd think it is an unusual situation, for a scientist to have to make such judgement calls with millions of lives at stake.

When science becomes fettered to an end that is separate from truth, conflicts of interests such as these arise. The sort of institutions that science has now become wed to all involve such heterogenous ends. — Leontiskos

It's not very conducive to having an accurate view of things, to reify science as you are. You also seem to be committing a genetic fallacy. Do you want to rephrase that in a less fallacious way?

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. Taxes go to pay for that research after all. It should be accessible. — Moliere

Agree 100%, that research results paid for by tax dollars should in general be more freely available. However, I'm afraid the fraction of the electorate that cares much about the issue is rather small, and I don't forsee much change anytime soon.

When the scientist was a man who sought truth we believed him to be speaking truth, but now that the scientist is an employee of institutions, we believe him to be acting in the interests of those institutions. — Leontiskos

Do you think that being employed by an institution is somehow contradictory to being a man who seeks truth?

I suppose that would be at least as problematic for clergy.

It's not clear to me that this is a good thing. As water heats up its capacity to absorb CO2 decreases. So given that the temperature of the oceans is increasing, it suggests we will have more rapid increase
in future atmospheric CO2 levels than would be suggested by models which attributed less CO2 absorption to the oceans.

IOW, it could be an indicator that things are worse than previously thought.

Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs?

Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'?

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. — Sam26

What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina?

I'm just refusing to pretend that... ...either side is interested in anything other than maintaining power. — Hanover

Is a strong interest in keeping a scumbag out of power, the same as an interest in maintaining power?

We have a word for thinking. We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner

It seems to me that to some degree "intuition" is a word we use for speaking about thinking without consciousness.

And if you don't mind multiple words being used, Here is some recent casual discussion of thinking without consciousness.

Although one might question if some of the further evolutions of this way of thinking might not just succeed in freeing language from coherence and content. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:smirk:

If you refuse to internalize moral principles you believe in and abide by, you're making yourself indistinguishable from a sociopath. — ucarr

That's not a real problem. People who know me don't have any trouble making the distinction.

The point about zombies is not whether or not you believe in them (nobody except Daniel Dennett does)... — bert1

I'm skeptical of the idea that Daniel Dennett believes anything these days, but anyway, that appears to be gratuitious slander.

From Wikipedia:

Some physicalists, such as Daniel Dennett, argue that philosophical zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible, or that all humans are philosophical zombies;[4][5]

Are you proposing sociology as a replacement for the moral authority of church and bible? — ucarr

I don't have much use for the notion of a moral authority. I am (quite possibly naively) hopeful that humanity developing better understanding of human nature and thus more accurate understanding of one another, will continue yielding positive results.

The fall of humanity into an inherently sinful nature had been a pretty good myth for checking human deceitfulness. In the wake of its obliteration by rationalist, materialist science and logic, what do we have in its place? — ucarr

An understanding that we have an evolved social primate nature rather than a mythological fallen nature. Though perhaps it's not a widespread understanding, due to the human propensity to cling to simplistic comforting myths.

It is a long story. If science does not and cannot explain knowledge AT ALL, then all of its knowledge claims rest within the claims as claims only. This is just the way it is throughout analytical thinking, isn't it? A person tells me moonlight is reflected sunlight, and I ask what the sun is, and not only is there no answer, but the very possibility of an answer is problematic, then the proposition that moonlight is reflected sunlight light becomes very thrown into doubt while the search for what a "sun" could possiblity be moves forward.

Okay, so we know what the sun is. But consider: A scientist tells me moonlight is reflected sunlight, and I ask, how do you know anything about anything? Not just suns and moons, but anything at all. The scientist brushes this off, but note: she has no answer. I mean, in the language of the science she is so familiar with, there simply IS no answer to this. — Constance

Thanks for the response.

This is a pretty good illustration of my point about myopic philosophizing without being scientifically informed. I'll bow out now.

If determinism is true, aren’t we all, in a sense, always told what to think? — Fire Ologist

I'd think it more accurate to say that we think as it is our nature to think. I'd add that that nature, is to a substantial degree, determined by the environment our thinking developed in.

I certainly don't have a sense of always being told what to think. I'm curious as to why you would think of it as you described above.

Before you get to quantum physics, you have to ask more basic questions, those of philosophy. What is knowledge? What is language? What is aesthetics and ethics? To affirm quantum physics or evolution is, of course, not questioned at all. — Constance

Given that we are granting evolution occurred, (I presume you mean biological evolution) I'm not seeing much reason to privelege philosophical consideration especially. There is a large and growing amount of scientific investigation into matters of great relevance to epistemology, language, aesthetics, and ethics. Can you make a case for why the philosophy to which you are referring is more important to understand than the growing body of scientific understanding?

Surely you understand that is not what I am asking. — I like sushi

I was hasty and misread your "assuming Non-determinism is true" as "assuming determinism is true".

In any case, from my perspective you still seem to be asking about a false dichotomy between libertarian free will and fatalism, and I think it is better to understand that it is a false dichotomy and look beyond it. Thus my "neither".

Is it 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism assuming Non-determinism is true? Why? Why not? If neither why? — I like sushi

Neither. It is better to become informed about relevant science than to settle for adherence to a simplistic philosophical position.

Just the kind of detailed information I live for! — BC

:up:

Per the eminent anti-ranching Bing Crosby & and the Andrews Sisters... — BC

Per Wikipedia:

Originally written in 1934 for Adios, Argentina, an unproduced 20th Century Fox film musical, "Don't Fence Me In" was based on text by Robert (Bob) Fletcher, a poet and engineer with the Department of Highways in Helena, Montana. Cole Porter, who had been asked to write a cowboy song for the 20th Century Fox musical, bought the poem from Fletcher for $250. Porter reworked Fletcher's poem, and when the song was first published, Porter was credited with sole authorship. Porter had wanted to give Fletcher co-authorship credit, but his publishers did not allow it. The original copyright publication notice dated October 10, 1944 and the copyright card dated and filed on October 12, 1944 in the U.S. Copyright Office solely lists words and music by Cole Porter. After the song became popular, however, Fletcher hired attorneys who negotiated his co-authorship credit in subsequent publications. Although it was one of the most popular songs of its time, Porter claimed it was his least favorite of his compositions.

(I only knew about this because I once ran lights for a local civic theater run of the biographical musical Red Hot and Cole.)

Why do all the deities in the explored galaxy like to be invoked by an open flame? — Vera Mont

I suppose a related question is, "Why do we humans find a deity coming through flames apposite?"

Perhaps a huge amount of human history involved with the day's work being done, and having time at the end of the day to sit around the campfire considering and discussing, "What in the hell is going on here?"

It seems plausible that for humanity, having a cultural association between flame and metaphysical thought has deep cultural roots. Also, for the vast majority of human history, flame itself must have been a mysteriously animated thing to behold, and so perhaps symbolic of mysteries beyond our grasp.

Why do you say this? Can it be demonstrated? — Tom Storm

Not sure where you find someone who is unconstrained by ignorance.

I am talking about a species of which they fulfill their nature necessarily at the expense of other species. — Bob Ross

You'd have to go awfully far back in time, to find an ancestor of ours that wasn't a member of such a species.

Very true. Man is the rational animal though and presumably "demon men" would be rational as well, so it's hard to see how they could have entirely different in terms of what springs from rationality and how this orients the person. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is the issue of what springs from an evolved nature though. In our case, what we find to be good is substantially a matter of our ancestors having evolved as members of a social species.

We might imagine a devil species which evolved from relatively asocial ancestors. (Though I think the plausibility of human level intelligence evolving in an asocial species is pretty low.) Assuming something like human level intelligence evolved in an asocial species. I would think it quite surprising if such a species had a morality very similar to us.

I'm skeptical. I don't think you would go all that long without deliberating about eating or drinking.

Ok, do you think that you are able to maintain a free willed choice to stop deliberating for the rest of your life?

If determinism is true, then there is no good reason to deliberate because such thought will not change how I decide (I must choose, or "act" the same way whether I deliberate or not). — NotAristotle

Do you think that you are able to make a free willed choice to stop deliberating?

First, we need to outline what is meant by these terms.

Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real). — I like sushi

I doubt that this is a common view among those who accept determinism. Results of the 2020 Phipapers survey were:

Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
Accept or lean towards: compatibilism 59.16% (57.68%)
Accept or lean towards: libertarianism 18.83% (18.20%)
Accept or lean towards: no free will 11.21% (10.58%)
Other 13.54%

Compatibilism, in a nut shell, is the view that free will is compatible with determinism.

What you are describing as determinism I would call fatalism.

Karma is the name given to the displacement of true nature with the illusory constructions and projections of Mind. — ENOAH

I don't know what you mean by "displacement of true nature". However, I think you are right in the sense that notions of karma are intimately tied up with our social primate tendency to project onto the world in terms of deservedness:



It seems to me, that the notion of karma arises from an attempt to rationalize, our instinctive (and substantially emotional) tendency to judge deservedess, as a matter of objective fact about the world.
(As opposed to recognizing the inherent subjectivity of judgements of deservedness.)

Does this fit at all with what you are thinking?

The APS magazine provides a neat summation of the mechanics of making choices. — Banno

Nice succinct overview of important to understand matters. Bookmarked.

Could they not learn from that experience? Perhaps in some cases to go down for a while is the only way to continue on the way up. — Janus

As a resident of MAGA world, I certainly hope so.

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve? — Janus

Consider people who get involved in cults?

The following view is ascribed to Nietzsche: — Tarskian

And? Is this meant to be an argument from authority? Nietzche having made predictions about the future based on his limited perspective isn't something I am all that interested in.

In any case, it doesn't seem to respond to the questions I asked you.

Your position seems to mostly amount to an appeal to consequences fallacy. Suppose a substantial portion of our fellow social primates can't cope emotionally with having an atheistic perspective. Do you recognize that that doesn't have any bearing on whether God exists?

...frantically trying to avoid the inevitable final outcome, which is that it will spectacularly commit suicide. — Tarskian

Sounds like fantasizing on your part, to me.

Do you see yourself as someone likely to commit suicide if you came to have an atheist perspective? If so, do you think that might just be a personal issue you have?

:up: :up:

Sounds as if you are arguing for an intellectually impoverished populace, and I wonder why?

Looking into what groups can be found through meetup.com might be worthwhile.

delete