General Philosophy

Having read numerous threads in this forum and others regarding evolution, I have noted a general consensus of opinion that consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I find this idea ridiculous and impossible to believe, as I have seen no evidence that suggests that consciousness and evolution are mutually exclusive. What I have seen is evidence that consciousness evolves, life forms evolve, and all life forms are conscious. This would seem to indicate that consciousness and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact related. Possibly even interdependent. If I have missed some important information, please tell me what it is. Gee

Are you rather a determinist or indeterminist? I am a determinist. I consider everything as cause and effect. An indeterministic effect has a cause, which makes the process deterministic. Determinism is the belief that events are caused by things that happened prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism Indeterminism is the belief that events are not caused by things that happened prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

I absolutely detest the question; What is the meaning of life? It's just, really poorly worded when you think about it. So I spent a decade or so, trying to just figure out a better question to ask. This is it; What is the nature of our existence? I could go on I guess, but I'd rather just let people sit with the question. As for why "What is the meaning of life?" Is a pretty shite question; that's a whole other thread!

If you've ever listened to The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC radio 4 you know of this infamous debate. So when IS a strawberry dead? What do we classify as death, is it when it is picked? or when is ceases to photosynthesize? This is a difficult question to answer, my personal thought is the strawberry is dead when it stops producing and runs out of the sugars it needs to survive

What is reductionism?

I searched everywhere on the Internet but couldn't find a conclusive answer. My question is: Do mathematical entities (like numbers or probability distributions for example) really exist in the universe or are mathematical entities just a human invention? In other words, is mathematics really out there in the universe or is mathematics just a tool that humans invented in order to describe the universe?

Why should I tolerate their intolerance and hatred when I can get them back, for what they've done... On the face of it, such a seductive argument... So why, or, is it wrong?

In this thread I'd like to explore the various relationships that obtain between science, truth, and knowledge, and perhaps help to ameliorate some very deep confusions that have been brought to my attention through discussion with fellow members. I've noticed that, in contexts related to science, some members are extremely reluctant to make any mention of the word "truth" (and its cognates: true, truly, etc.), a tendency that struck me as quite inexplicable until the reason, I think, for this misguided reticence was exposed in a very revealing comment recently. If I may paraphrase: "The making of claims to truth would compromise the open-minded character of the…

A couple of recent threads, I've commented in, suggests the answer to this question is not obvious, so Let's discuss...

Just a useless, worthless comment on "testing" Now, in a driving test one either passes or fails. In a school test, we might get a certain score. And when you claim a scientific theory is "tested", what would it take to fail the test? Observation disagreeing with theoretical predictions? But I think we all know by now, scientists don't do that. They'll cling to a cherished theory until something they like better comes along. This may be provocative, but hey... what fun would it be if we all bray in unison. LOL P.S. I hear a lot about evolutionary theory being "tested". Will someone please give me an example of one of these tests? Thanks. …

There have been a couple good threads recently which deal with awareness and consciousness which has gotten me thinking a bit about the function of consciousness and what it actually does and doesn't do. I consciously reason and make choices in life but only after I have unconciously interpreted things. I know instantaneously without any thought what I do and don't want or how I feel about everything. My consciousness chooses an action but the action chosen seldom ever changes what I want or feel. Simply examples of this happen all day everyday. While walking down the street I see a jacket in a store window and immediately am aware that I want it. The desire to have i…

If you look carefully to the video, you will read the words " sens du mouvement" (direction of the movement). This "movement" is a "motion in time". It is represented as Time being a static dimension in which the objects are translating. It appears no different than a motion in space. The video also shows the imprint of the path. The question is if this imprint truly "exist" or not. IOW the question is whether objects constantly duplicate over time and thus "exist" in the past (and also the future) or if the object simply "moves through time" and exists in its own present only. If the imprint exists, then we have the Block Universe (B…

Hi everyone, Do you think control over your desires are possible?

When I read about physics I cannot help but think that phycists maybe barking up the wrong tree, as outlined in an article titled 'Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?'. They don't seem to be answering what is surely the most important question, in fact phycists like Laurance Krauss don't think its important at all, he seems happy to just take it for granted. So my question is what is the deepest mystery of physics and why is it so?

Greetings all, My intention here is to challenge the celebration currently under way in regards to the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Although I'm using the Higgs as an example case, my purpose really is to ask larger questions about our relationship with knowledge. I hope you might find these questions interesting and engage them, whatever your position. The global celebration of the Higgs discovery, and the seeming lack of a counter view, seems to shine a light on a culture wide consensus that more knowledge is better, almost no matter what, even if the knowledge was very expensive to obtain, and seems to have little defined benefit. I propo…

Philosophy gave birth to science, so... I'm going to stop there, because I want this thread to evolve naturally. Discuss...

This thought struck me while reading the recent traffic on the subject, so instead of dragging that one off topic, here we are in my default forum (if anyone can think of a better place, feel free to let rip 😉) I mean that philosophically, it seems little more than a semantic exercise; but if we pulled it off politically, then it could liberate millions of prisoner's because we'd understand just how culpable they were and society would be satisfied with a far lower bar, as regards justice. But what could it mean scientifically other than just knowing?

Little Johnny's Mother told him that it was bad to tell a lie -- that it was wrong. Little Sarah's Mother told her that it was bad to tell a lie -- that it was wrong. As they grew, Johnny and Sarah learned that sometimes it is good and right to tell a lie, because the truth could hurt people. These are called "little white lies". When they matured, they learned that some bad and wrong things can be good and right. Like killing people is bad, except when it isn't and you get a medal for it. Fighting is bad, except when you have to. And stealing from people is wrong and bad, except when you call it taxes, or maybe insurance, or maybe even stocks. So in my opi…

weather your a billionaire or a homeless guy on the streets on NY. a religious leader or a movie star in a hundred years you will be dead and all of your accomplishments will not matter to you any longer. and in a thousand years in all probability no one will remember you. and in a 5 billion years all traces of your legacy will be destroyed with the earth when the sun becomes a red giant. so does anything even these words as I type them matter at all in any capacity?? and as an extension if nothing matters does right and wrong exist?

Inspired by this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/ I wonder how many posters in this forum consider themselves animals or even part of the animal kingdom? How much of what is interpreted through our research and studies in biology, ecology, zoology, etc. are we anthropomorphizing? Any thoughts?

Of course, here I must chime in... The definition of free will you use here implies that 'consciousness' must have the lead, if it is supposed to be genuine free will. But that is a definition that stems from (bad...) Christian theology. Most modern concepts of free will got rid of this inheritance, but obviously neurologists still haven't noticed. 'Free will' means that somebody recognises that he can act according his own reasons, and is not forced to go against them by somebody else. But 'according to' does not mean 'caused by'. You are (unconsciously?) using following argumentative strategy: Use a single, and outdated, heavily metaphysically loaden con…

I'm testing my first poll today. I've scanned for similar topics but wasn't able to find collocations "good philosophy" or "bad philosophy". Especially if your option is the third one, I'm very interested in your criteria, exceptions, and so on. Thank you very much.

I came to the incredible conclusion that we might all be the same person. I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous, but I promise you that conclusion is based in logic. 1 The apartments thought experiment. I am going to start with this thought experiment since it best visualizes the overall theory. It does not ‘proof’ the theory in any immediate way. However in the short chapters that follow, I will try to show that there might be no difference between this thought experiment, and how conscious life in universe works. The apartments thought experiment We have a drug which is capable to regulate to which part of the brain a person can read/write memory. …

I have noticed in discussions of theories and God, that there is a reluctance to give the holder of the theory, if it is not "us" holding the theory, the benefit of the doubt. The tendency to put the same idea in a good light when described concerning the first person, a neutral light concerning the second person, and a negative light with the third person, seems evident, and probably has some basis, in terms of how we are "set up" as humans. I am thinking it may have to do with what rules "we" go by. The topic title was written by TAR2 (me), who is an Atheist. The order of Reality,Theory,God might be God, Reality, Theory to a Theist, or Theory, Reality, G…

Answering the question "Can nothing exist?": "nohing is" and "everything is not" against "everything is" and "nothing is not". the second statement is a paradox, the firs isnt. to me, this would imply, that the original question isnt correct, that its opposite IS the question: "can nothing not exist"