General Philosophy

I think we are all shaped by the social norms we grew up in, I believe this programes our beliefs and behaviors. Do you think it would be possible to reverse engineer a specific social norm and then create an algorithum. That can be used to predict human behavior ?.

Assuming that leaning toward a preference for moral actions is the basis of human nature, thus the occurence of mental maturity and development of self-image is present, what are the factors which slow down this process? If demoralization exists, then the other branch would be following moral principles contributing to the ideal behavior in a community. If humans would follow fundamental moral principles, then we would reach an ideal society, developing as individuals to our full mental and physical capacities. Since both moral values and lack of them stems from within our perception and logical reasoning, then demoralization of a whole community takes root …

I am not a scientist but someone interested in broad concepts, so please excuse the naivety. Just looking for answers... I understand that single (quantum level) particles fired through a double slit created a standard wave pattern over time. Could it be (or is it) argued that every outcome for an individual particle exists at the same time? So time can be considered layered at the quantum level. Min this way every outcome of the particle exists at the same time and each interacts with the other. When we interact with the particle we randomly define one of these time layers, to create our momentary reality, to the exclusion of all the other layers. Like ta…

if reality is composed at it's most fundamental level of information, how did this "material" come about? In a sense, that is what reality is "doing" with all this fancy evolution business...so as to extrapolate before the existence of maths proper, to whatever preceeded it. I see a flow-chart that begins with the void and ends with the IBH which describes everything and allows a tiny fraction to be expressed as the universe(s). Many of you have seen my threads already so I won't repeat myself unecessarily here unless asked specific questions...

Science often comes up with reason to deviate from cultural normativity in the interest of some rational reason. The famous movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" derives its title from the idea that science can generate truths that pose inconvenient consequences for heeding them. Since truth is presumably immutable in an absolute sense, the question is whether cultural normativity can avoid it permanently, or at least until some crisis forces changes to be undertaken? If so, is there any practical function to science or is it just a futile exercise in understanding things that refuse to change until they're forced to?

Since the rise of man (and woman), it was in our nature to understand the ways of nature to better our survival. It was inevitable that we take this instinctual drive to understand nature and push it to its logical conclusion: To have a complete understanding of the atomic order of the universe and then, through our vast knowledge, bend it to our will. To live like gods! But I am tortured by the question “What then?” Hypothetically, if one were to acquire all the knowledge there is to be acquired about the universe, what is that person left to do for the rest of his/her existence? Play ping pong? I think it is the mystery of reality that keeps our lives fulfilling. The fa…

THE AXIOM OF EXISTENCE Something rather than nothing exists because only existence can exist. Non-existence or nothingness cannot exist because nothingness is non-existence and only existence can exist. Thus nothingness cannot exist and can never have existed. Only existence exists or has ever existed or can ever exist. Thus there is not and never was and never could or can be a nothingness out of which something came into being. There is and has always been only existence and whatever forms exist within it. There is not even nothing outside of existence, or before or after or beyond existence. There is no outside or before or after or beyond existence. There is o…

As we progress through the digital age, questions will arise about whether there is a limit to our capabilities of advancement. Will we simply continue to go beyond the boundaries that we think is the limit or is there a "transcendent" state we will soon be in, where we are no longer physical, but data entities and we no longer are consistent as biological organisms, but as pieces of data that live in a network? I put this in philosophy because this may bring some philosophical questions.

I'm new to the topic, but it's interesting to me. From what I've read... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/ It seems our intersubjective verifiability agrees with LNC and LEM as a foundation of logic. But there is a debated or uncertain exception to the rules; para-consistency, rather than inconsistency. The concept I think is that some "variables", structure and function may be a contradiction intentionally, and is unlike everything else that is consistent. An exception to the rule, or is it... I'm not really that familiar with Buddhism, but the example of the exception described in the text refers to a Buddhist viewpoint. I attempted t…

what is time? Hello, Sci-man here AKA, (TheDarkOverlord) I'm wondering what time is some say time is a real thing some say time is a concept but i think its a little of both. so if you could please answer this question. 'What is time and how do you think it began?'

Recently i found out that i have ASD (highly functioning) For most of my life i haven't been able to experience embarrassment and thought that if i was able to live and survive without embarrassment for so long then why does it exist at all? Is it a bug? is it a feature? Maybe its beneficial to some and not others? or maybe it was beneficial back when we were drawing paintings on the inside of caves. Personally i think its a pretty much useless feeling, i like being able to use pure logic to make decisions than feel like i shouldnt because "Nooo you cant wear that, everyone will make fun of you!" or "No, not that color; thats for girls!" or "Nooo, you've gotta use t…

Interpret the question as you would like, share your thoughts.

Everything starts from an Idea... Not Fact, But an Idea... The Problem with Science, is it always discredits the Idea until it creates the idea.... Even when the Idea is the very thing that creates the world you live in... Why do you all feel so insulted and offended by an Idea? Its dumb... This in itself in my idea... you dont even need to respond to it... why do you respond? If you respond then respond with your own idea... Stop feeling insulted and offended by ideas that were never yours to begin with....

We think of our universe as being a whole entity, but in my theory you will see how our universe is made up of infinete small things and infinately big things at the same time.....Firstly think of our sun in our solar system this is very simalar to the structure of an Atom. The structure of our Galaxy the milkyway is also simalar... this structure is universal and aslo iconic. Now the sun in our solar system is very simalar to an Electron in a Atom, also our sun is our solar systems energy giver. Here we can see that our galaxy the Milky way has millions of suns just like electrons in a atom and round those suns are planets, these planets act in a clockwork f…

I've been thinking about Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, which basically argues that we are living inside a computer simulated universe created by our descendants. I began to wonder just how plausible this argument is, and after thinking about it for a I came up with the following idea: Assuming the first two possibilities that Bostrom proposes, which are 1) that we go extinct before becoming technologically capable of creating simulated universes and 2) That we do become capable of creating simulated universes but do not create any, are incorrect, Bostrom says that we are almost guaranteed to be living in a simulated universe inside a supercomputer, because the n…

I believe in reincarnation. Forever is much too long to experience but one short terminal infinitesimally small conscious existence in the vast sea of everything, known and unknown. My eternal and immortal soul cannot be made nor destroyed much like space, space-time, gravity, energy, time and matter. In 1964, this soul that is the ever me found a new living male human body to posssess. This occured on planet Earth in the Milky Way galaxy. Mother Nature and Father TIme have already been in existence forever like my own soul. Time extends infinitely into the past as it does the future. I have forever yet to come. I'm very disappointed in Mother Nature and Father Time. The…

There are no typing errors: "To err is uman."

Hello everyone. It seems to me that too many established scientists nowadays like to bring up anthropic principle way too often. It's like this principle is a new deus ex machina - if you don't know how to explain something just bring up anthropic principle. Oh, yeah, and it's also infallable by the definition. Can you help me understand why it's so popular? Thanks!

My first time here…maybe just a stupid thought… If you put empty space inside an empty space…do you then end up with two empty spaces? Or is the one now no longer empty because of it containing the other empty space? Do they add up to more emptiness? Does emptiness absorb added emptiness without growing because you add nothing? Would that mean that all emptiness fits into nothingness since it actually can contain itself inside itself? If so then it is impossible to have an actual empty space…so emptiness should be able to expand… That’s strange since how can nothing add to something? Emptiness is a nonexistent thing; always something is? What exists outside som…

If some one were to write a Book, on philosophy and its most important , perplexing , intriguing, and mysterious questions, .....and this book consisted of 10 chapters, one on each greatly debated questions......what would be the names of each chapter? thanks for your replies,.....so i can get right to work on this book........jk

Very few of us on these boards will be unfamiliar with the writer, commentator, and all-round iconoclast Christopher Hitchens - whether you love or loathe him you might find the linked interview interesting. In the interview he talks to Jeremy Paxman about life, death, cancer, and other things in his usual forthright and uncompromising style: Paxman Meets Hitchens This is an iplayer link to content which I am not sure is available outside the UK. I will also ferret around for a different source. Youtube link part 1 Youtube part 2 I hope this is the correct place to put such a link - I wondered about ethics, religion, politics, and the lounge but decided on…

Hi community, Since this is my first post here I will take a couple of sentences to introduce myself. I am a 3. semester marine biology student. Over my holidays I somehow managed to work as a consultant for an international organisation in a small country in South-east Asia. I worked on a marine turtle surveying project and helped to build capacity and awareness towards conservation in this country. Now coming back to New Zealand and going back to uni I am still working on the reports for the organisation I conducted fieldwork for. Due to listening to Alan Watts this morning (he is a philosopher I really like), I realised like so many times before that he …

Example Problem of Perception in Science Theory: Case of Ether by Scott Mayers From Wikipedia: To me, the intension of any 'theory' of aether is about questioning whether space itself is what 'matters'. Of course, we predefined what 'matters' originally to the things which occupy such spaces in a way that simply ignores or diminishes any significance to things that we cannot "make sense" of. Often this is more about 'which' senses we are actually referring to only, not all of them. For instance, from our ancient past, the idea of what matters was often only granted to strictly certain solid things. The hints of this can be found in our now-religio…

It it true that it is very difficult if not impossible to stop thinking with your voice once you know a language. If I was going to think anyway, is my idea ever original? I'm going to think again, but it could be a good idea-- but because it's product of me thinking, and the words I know enslave me to thinking in my voice, is this idea really mine, or am I compelled to put in effort because of the words and their control over my mind (i.e. we can't stop thinking)?

After having an odd day of repeated dejá vu or flashes of memories of my dreams from the previous nights. I realized that these flashes were occurring when I looked at certain objects as if memories were been saved on other objects. This concept inspired me to realize you can save information in some sense on projections or representations rather than just physical objects, I went onto consider the concept of saving or even processing information on objects that are not just material. Perhaps saving and processing information on liquids, gases, energy, or somehow information itself or to save information on projections or objects that bring to mind certain thoughts wh…