Read and talk about Plato with them.

Well the initial state problem is true because as the opening post describes that they would not be able to count the amount of individuals in groups of different eye colors.

Yes, I still believe that.

I thought this puzzle has an initial state problem that makes it impossible to solve.

Because the quoted is true, I can only deduce that some people have found a way to identify each other and they are being taken away.

I watched LOST a lot.

Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. — flannel jesus

Is this the crux of the puzzle?

Swept away was the concept of restricting one's forces to shooting enemy forces. The new understanding was that civilians, rather than being innocent were essential to the conduct of war, in as much as civilians produce the matériel required by the armed forces, from bread to bullets to bombs. Civilians took care of business and also produce future soldiers. — BC

I'm not sure if this makes any sense with regards to atomic bombs. Their destructive force would merit destroying ships or tanks with them. Surely not vaporizing civilians with shadows etched on concrete. Given that you seem also to imply that these civilians are somehow justified by the rationale of war at the time along with even going as far as denying any aspect of innocence towards them because of their participation in war efforts of Japan is truly a cruel argument.

So the death of 1 million Japanese civilians is terrible, but the death of 10 million Chinese civilians doesn't matter to you. — T Clark

Your conclusion simply does not follow because I was only addressing Japanese deaths regarding the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

We’re done here I think. — T Clark

Sure.

Is there any logic to this? I never heard of Americans defending the lives of Chinese civilians. Let me lay out the screwy logic for the bombings of Japanese civilians. The death of Japanese civilians were meant to prevent the death of American soldiers. Given that no laws were in place to prevent this from happening, then what rationale can be presented to justify the death of innocent civilians in Japan during WWII with the atomic bombs?

I don't understand. Are you diminishing or downplaying the death of people? I mean, yes, during wars people die; but, the Japanese have been very stoic about it, regarding their loss of civilians. Please keep in mind that these were civilians who were bombed.

I don’t think it makes any sense to wring our hands about one incident like this. — T Clark

You know how callous that sounds? In fact there were two incidents altogether. Look the externalities of the atomic bomb along with the internalities of why at all they should be built have been criticized for as long as they've been around.

Interesting question on the side: Has the advent of the atomic then thermonuclear bomb, made a safer world?

Warning. Some atomic playboyism about to be displayed.

Imagine the harm from the Castle Bravo test. Not spoken about yet. Then there's the problem of atomic nuclei from the absurd amount of atmospheric tests conducted.

In my view, there are no results or consequences other than the deaths (and suffering) you facilitated. Of course, there is the possibility that you might receive some kind of prize. — Tom Storm

Pretty much my view on the matter also. I don't know if some nirvana or whatever the prize may have been awarded for creating such a weapon of mass destruction.

In what context would depression be healthy? — Malcolm Parry

Well, in the realm of philosophy it is called philosophical pessimism. My hunch is that philosophical pessimism is more attune with how emotive it is with the aspect of depression professes itself. Might sound like a word-salad but I think there's truth to philosophical pessimism.

I think depression is a healthy attitude as long as it remains an attitude. I often believe in some kind of truth of why people feel depressed. It occured to me before my depression lifted that levels of a neurotrophic factor, called, BDNF or boosting levels of it often coincides with a better mood.

However, you seem to think that the clarification of the content of the contract will deprive the people of their due rights, which I cannot understand. — panwei

The only import from my comment, which I believe is associated with rules governing behavior, which is a problem that has persisted and will continue to persist until some new form of rule-following pattern in enforcing behavior could arise. Such a form of governance relies on the people to appreciate their own behavior, such as making money, which leads to self-reinforcement. The carrot has taken humanity a lot farther than the stick.

I also want to point out that content is very important, which as you may witness how important content in included in fine print to be avoided from being understood.

I also do not think standards are something that rules are deeply associated with, given that these are usually cultural values which are passed down from generation to generation. However, China has succeeded in their own cultural revolution, while American counter culturalists have defeated themselves by quite literally smoking the opiate.

There is a problem with this line of reasoning that already has transpired in the world. When laws and rules are in conflict with equality, then the disenfranchised will react. Overdetermination of rules and laws have been a source of disenfranchisement in the past, also, this is true of many countries.

Yes, I agree. But, one must will it into, well, happening.

Just a random picture of Platon:

Some relevant domain distinctions are Abstract vs Concrete & Relations vs Things & Ideal vs Real & Mental vs Material & Cultural vs Natural. The Forms, like Math, are logically true even though materially false. In their relevant cultural domain (psychology ; philosophy), Forms are useful tools for thinking, even though useless for manipulating matter, until trans-formed into a natural domain (physics ; science). — Gnomon

I believe that string theory is closest one can approach the Forms in terms of mathematics and physics as one would or could imagine. It's the only field in physics that is entirely dependent on mathematical relations.

I've returned to this thread after a pause in philosophizing, sorry.

Regarding treating the theory of forms as an attempt to comprehend itself as a form of reference, I would say this is a mistaken view for the following reason:

1. The Forms are a separate domain of discourse, which one is only able to grasp with understanding of mathematics. With regard to mathematics, the OP still is cogent. If one were to render the truths of mathematics in an informal language, then sure, it would be a pointless and futile way to say, "see this doesn't make sense", as the sense of the whole theory lies with apperception of the platonic forms in the domain of discourse of mathematics. The very notion of Truth, which the Forms are placed in is in the domain of discourse of mathematics, and probably nowhere else, (possibly in mathematical-physics perhaps).

SO, what are your thoughts about the ineffability of mathematics and the problematic translation of Truth rendered in mathematics, which is poorly understood as a language that can be seen in informal languages?

Desire is a projection of memory. — unenlightened

Is this a psychological fact? As I believe it cannot.

Well, the aim here is to have a rendering or model of language that aligns with truth of concepts and what I imagine "archetypes" in understanding concepts as truthful. This whole use as meaning from Wittgenstein's family resemblance and language games is kinda something I wanted to see disambiguated from a Tarskian view on semantics...

Um, I can almost understand this. Can you develop it more? — tim wood

Yes, well the rationale is that given that languages utilize extensively the use of concepts to talk about various issues, like space or time or physics, then I surmise that by appealing to T-schemas, that a user of language would be better able to understand concepts with regards to what can be rendered or said truthfully about a concept in a language (atomic sentences).

This time it may be Africa's chance for a pope...

Intense. Good thread opening post. :clap:

No. Those will be allowed in the shout box. — T Clark

Yes, this.

There go my pig videos.

:meh:

The very existence of this forum thread in a male dominated space of discourse is in itself proof of the intellectual awakening in this topic. — Christoffer

:halo:

The egalitarianism-oriented social cohesion of the tribal societies, this in regard to hunter-gatherer tribes of the past - just as much as it pertains to, and based on what we know of, the hunter-gatherer tribes of today. — javra

Yes, I agree that the social cohesion of tribes or hunter-gatherer societies of the past would have broken apart had men taken advantage of women in the past. However, I am not sure if this was commonplace. Obviously the ambiguity of this situation should not warrant doubt, yet, one does wonder. I would even hypothesize that the more evolved groups did better or assimilated other hunter-gatherer societies more successfully than the ones that were less evolved in terms of group behavior towards women.

I'd like to reiterate the stance taken in this thread, being that, if men to this day are still so predatory against women in terms of sexual assaults, rape, and molestation, then what were preventing these tendencies in the past (prehistoric times) if there were no police, law enforcement, or laws protecting their livelihoods?

That would only be the imaginary part?

I hope you can elucidate to us the true nature of statistics. Would it be possible to one day discover causation from correlation?

Just food for thought.

Thanks man. Really happy you held down the fort.

Awesome post friend. :up:

Yeah, but isn't Allah a name of God, also?

Either way, Hebrews never recognized Jesus as the king of Jews, and never would. For which he was crucified.

Jesus was not abandoned by God; but by YHWH. Get it right. YHWH abandoned Jesus.

Just setting the record straight.

I had a dream that you became mayor or governor of your city.

I'll probably join Bluesky, thanks...

Must the cogito rely upon a notion of the past and future in order for its doubt to make sense? — Moliere

No. It seems as though there is something more to it than the solipsism Descartes allowed in his analysis on the cogito. I think that one can allow skepticism about things like God's intention or even the Will itself.