Philosophy Now Forum

Gee wrote:...
A very brief explanation would be in an understanding of ecosystems. If you look closely at a forest, what you will find is thousands of different species attacking other species or fighting for dominance. One would think that eventually someone would win, but it does not happen. We have learned that if we remove or add a specie, we can actually damage and potentially destroy the ecosystem. This is because the ecosystem is self-balancing. Now when we discuss balance, one may think of a teeter-totter, or a scale, but when these things are in balance they stop. An ecosystem's balance is based on motion. If some or all of the species stopped, the ecosystem would die. So the ecosystem perpetuates itself through constant motion and can last for thousands of years, maybe tens of thousands. This is just one example, but seems to be a common theme in all life and consciousness. ...

I thought that all that happens is another eco-system takes its place?

You confuse truth with what you could easily copy and paste of those chinese words I presented you, and you didn't realize out in the real world it's impossible for tourists to copy and paste road signs, thus they can get lost if the GPS hasn't a map of that area.

Before GPS we used maps, pencils and paper and managed to go places without understanding the language.

Now, do you really think any tourists can know their way from a road sign when they can't read it?

Yes, as long as they can recognise the sign or symbol, i.e. they can recognise the shape and follow the signs.

HexHammer wrote:... IBM tryed that back in the days with print card, which was soon scrapped because life was too complex and abstract.

What are you talking about? The print-card worked fine it was advances in technology that scrapped its physical use and had fuck all to do with life being too complex and abstract. You talk babble and nonsense.

HexHammer wrote:If you can define truth, it would be an algorithm, any algorithm can be programmed into a machine, a machine can then utelize this algorithm.

Not all algorithms have a machine solution, we have the Halting Problem and the NP Complete class.

But Imo we can't just make a simple definition of truth, which I have said all along, that simple thing escapes you.

But we can make simple definitions of truth that we can algorithmatise, e.g. deductive truth is now computational, so don't be in a job that is just pure deduction is my advice, as you'll be going the way of the book-keepers.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Can a triangle have 3x 90 degree conors? Ordinary people would say no, IDIOT! But they can!

Not if they are on a plane they can't.

Truth is delusive!

No, its exact. So a triangle on a plane is different than a triangle on a sphere. The only common factor is that they have three sides.

A triangle is a triangle!
You are limiting truth to a selective reality of yours, when truth should encompass ALL reality.

It's either yes or no, in this case it's yes! A triangle can have 3x 90 degrees conors!

Arising_uk wrote:

You confuse truth with what you could easily copy and paste of those chinese words I presented you, and you didn't realize out in the real world it's impossible for tourists to copy and paste road signs, thus they can get lost if the GPS hasn't a map of that area.

Before GPS we used maps, pencils and paper and managed to go places without understanding the language.

Now, do you really think any tourists can know their way from a road sign when they can't read it?

Yes, as long as they can recognise the sign or symbol, i.e. they can recognise the shape and follow the signs.

Nice selfcontradicting babble!

Telle me o wise babblehead what this sign says:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EtYBo093ftk/U ... hinois.jpg

HexHammer wrote:A triangle is a triangle!
You are limiting truth to a selective reality of yours, when truth should encompass ALL reality.

Its not mine, its Geometry's.

It's either yes or no, in this case it's yes! A triangle can have 3x 90 degrees conors!

Not on a flat plane they can't. So your 'all reality' is 'some triangles can have three ninety degree angles'. This 'all reality' of yours is 'triangles are shapes with three sides', no mention of angles as then it wouldn't be 'all reality'.

HexHammer wrote:Telle me o wise babblehead what this sign says:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EtYBo093ftk/U ... hinois.jpg

No idea but I can see its in two languages and if I want to get to wherever they say then I'll be following the signs that show these symbols and not others that don't. You apparently would get lost very easily.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:... No one would vote for a President that was as dumb as a box of rocks. Even though there were clues, people missed the clues, because they assumed otherwise. ...

I thought this was exactly why Americans voted for him and not the overtly intellectual Gore? As there appears to be an anti-intellectual strand running through many Americans, it appears to make them uncomfortable to think there are those smarter than them.

Hello Arising_uk;

Well, I would like to argue this point because I love America, but I am not sure that I can. I remember watching one of those "Town Hall" meetings that Kerry did while running against Bush. Someone asked a question which Kerry answered quite well, I thought. Then someone else stood up and asked something sloganish about it that was so stupid, that Kerry's jaw actually dropped open. I don't remember what the issue was about, but I do remember thinking to myself that Kerry was going to lose the election because he had no idea of how stupid the American public really is, or how to handle it.

I don't actually think that American's have lower IQ's on average, I think that it is values, priorities, and misinformation that makes them stupid. Thinking is not required in many public schools and is actively discouraged in a lot of them. Controlling behavior and "group think" are the dominant themes in public school, which I believe accounts for the large number of intelligent drop-outs and the high incidence of violence in schools.

Innovation, thinking, and individuality are discouraged from the schoolroom on, and this is reinforced through television, the news media, and a general disrespect for the subjective qualities of mind. So I think that people vote for someone that they can relate to, but the unfortunate part of this is that relating now means "group think", and "group think" is a quality that is best understood by lower IQ people. So Gore and Kerry seem foreign, but Bush seems a lot more like a neighbor. imo

Someone stated earlier that "IMHO" means "in my honest opinion", but when I learned it, it was supposed to mean "in my humble opinion"; since there is nothing humble about my opinions, I always skip the "h". (chuckle) I use lower case because my opinions are already too brassy.

G

Arising_uk wrote:

Gee wrote:...
A very brief explanation would be in an understanding of ecosystems. If you look closely at a forest, what you will find is thousands of different species attacking other species or fighting for dominance. One would think that eventually someone would win, but it does not happen. We have learned that if we remove or add a specie, we can actually damage and potentially destroy the ecosystem. This is because the ecosystem is self-balancing. Now when we discuss balance, one may think of a teeter-totter, or a scale, but when these things are in balance they stop. An ecosystem's balance is based on motion. If some or all of the species stopped, the ecosystem would die. So the ecosystem perpetuates itself through constant motion and can last for thousands of years, maybe tens of thousands. This is just one example, but seems to be a common theme in all life and consciousness. ...

I thought that all that happens is another eco-system takes its place?

Sometimes. Mostly an ecosystem will rebuild itself unless the land, weather, or some major climate change occurs. After St. Helen's blew in the Northwest US, some researchers decided to experiment. They divided the damaged land where a road was, and replanted one side of the road leaving the other side to nature. Eventually both sides of the road became indistinguishable and the new growth became part of the undamaged ecosystem so the "planted", the "regrown", and the "surviving" all became one ecosystem again, much like it was before the eruption.

So although volcanoes, floods, and tsunamis can seem to destroy an ecosystem, it rebuilds itself and 100 years later, one would have to really look for evidence of the damage. But we can and have destroyed ecosystems. I think right now the biggest concerns are about underwater reef ecosystems. There is little doubt that an ecosystem will either rebuild, or it will eventually be replaced with a new kind of system. The question is; will that new system be compatible with human life?

So it appears that all life is in someways interconnected. This does nothing to dispute my idea that life, consciousness, and ecosystems work through motion. This is how they perpetuate.

G

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:A triangle is a triangle!
You are limiting truth to a selective reality of yours, when truth should encompass ALL reality.

Its not mine, its Geometry's.

It's either yes or no, in this case it's yes! A triangle can have 3x 90 degrees conors!

Not on a flat plane they can't. So your 'all reality' is 'some triangles can have three ninety degree angles'. This 'all reality' of yours is 'triangles are shapes with three sides', no mention of angles as then it wouldn't be 'all reality'.

Who talks about flat plane? Only you!
You shoehorn an irrelevant property into the equation, forcing a faulty answer.

Ginko;

Please consider my following responses.

Ginkgo wrote: A lot of people are not pleased with Dennett, but this sayings nothing about the rightness or wrongness of this theory. I think he is difficult to understand because what he says is mostly counter intuitive, but again this has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness.

I should clear something up here. I did not state that Dennett is "difficult" to understand because I can not absorb his ideas; I stated that he is "difficult" to understand because I do not understand why the man would lie through his teeth. He is a philosopher, and as such should respect truth.

I was not asked if his theories were "right" or "wrong". Sappo de Miranda asked me how I "felt" about Dennett's philosophy, and that is what I answered.

Ginkgo wrote:Yes, Dennett says consciousness is an illusion, but he is definitely not a dualist in making this claim. Dennett provides us with a classical materialist explanation for consciousness. By saying that consciousness is an illusion Dennett actually means there is no actual first person account of consciousness. Another way of saying this would be that the observer of our thoughts is just an illusion.

So what he is saying is that there is no "self". Subjectivity does not actually exist -- it is an illusion. Since he can not find a "self" in the brain, it must not exist. Brilliant! Except this is not a new idea. Most people like to believe that only humans have subjectivity, because it is a lot easier to eat other species for dinner with that mind-set. And I believe that the Nazis were sure that the Jews did not actually have a self or subjectivity. And what about those Plantation owners in the South? Didn't they argue that it was alright to sell a slave's children because the slave would get over it soon just like other farm animals? I am sure that those slaves must also have not had a subjective "self".

So this would mean that free will is a bunch of silliness. Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness takes on whole new meanings, and self-control and/or self-respect don't really have any meaning. Of course people will have to be controlled from the outside just as other animals are. Some people might think this beneath the dignity of humans, but let us be frank, if subjectivity does not exist, then neither does dignity.

So since self-respect and dignity do not actually exist, as they are just illusion, then manners are irrelevant. In which case, I can be free to state that I think that Dennett is an ass. It won't hurt his feelings or insult him, because he does not actually exist -- he is just an illusion in a body.

Ginkgo wrote:According to Dennett's theory "google" could becomes conscious given enough time and complexity. Dennett is not a dualist because the "illusion" is not a division of consciousness.

According to Dennett's theory, he could be a philosopher, but so far, he is striking zero with these theories.

G

Arising_uk wrote: Not on a flat plane they can't. So your 'all reality' is 'some triangles can have three ninety degree angles'. This 'all reality' of yours is 'triangles are shapes with three sides', no mention of angles as then it wouldn't be 'all reality'.

Any angle can be projected onto a plane as a 90 degree angle. Each triangle has three angles so any triangle can be seen to have three 90 degree angles. To see these three 90 degree angles requires at least two more perspectives than you begin the exercise.

This is the nature of the real world. If you say that a triangle can't have more than one 90 degree angle than you are forcing an infinite perspective onto the question. This is more the effect of language than the nature of a triangle. Modern language assumes a single perspective from infinite distance.

From the edge a triangle is a straight line if it's viewed from the 4th dimension a rotating tringle is a pyramid or more specifically a cone.

Henry Quirk;

You said: Might be a good idea for everyone to read the thread over from the start.

I did, and this is what I found:

henry quirk
PostPosted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 2:09 pm

Truth = what is true = what is real = what 'is'

Facts, facts, and facts.

henry quirk
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:30 pm

Truth (what is real, what is true) is not elusive or subjective; symbols and perspective often are.

Learn to tell the difference...or not...don't care either way.

henry quirk
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:06 pm

Truth is what is real (objective).

Symbols and perspective are takes on what is real (subjective).

C'mon folks, this ain't that hard.

henry quirk
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:39 pm

Again, for Hex...

Truth is what is real (objective).

Symbols and perspective are takes on what is real (subjective).

henry quirk
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:42 pm

I have definition for 'truth' (that which is real; that which corresponds to reality).

Let's have yours.

henry quirk wrote:

Gee wrote: I believe that you stated that truth is real

Nope. Pretty much, over and over, I’ve said this, ‘truth = what is real’, what exists as independent of you and me and every one else.

I call bullshit. You also cut up my response to make your argument. My response, copied below, is a reasonable summary of your quoted statements above.

Gee wrote:I believe that you stated that truth is real (objective) whereas subjective truth is really opinion or perspective. I suspect the problem lies in your definition of "real". It seems that you think that something is "real" if it is physical or agreed upon (objective). This would be a better definition of "fact" than it is of reality or "truth".

Your quoted statement below seems to reinforce the idea that what is real is matter, or physical, or agreed upon.

henry quirk wrote:A simple test: if every one on the planet dies right now, what’s left is real.

So subjectivity is not real. This means that your emotions and feelings are not real. You can never be happy or sad, lonely or contented; you can never hate anyone, or love anyone; no one loves you as that is not real. You have no ambition or drive, but neither are you lazy; because those things are not real. All of the most important things in life, the things that make life worth living are not real -- according to you. I would say that you have lost your mind, but doubt that you could as I suspect that it also is not real. If you think that it is real, can you prove it?

G

HexHammer wrote: You are limiting truth to a selective reality of yours, when truth should encompass ALL reality.

HexHammer wrote: Thus truth is still elusive, relative and subjective.

?!

If this is supposed to serve as an example of what it means NOT to "have your head up your ass" and how to PROPERLY "have a fucking clue about doing philosophy" then I gladly accept Hex's assessment of me.