General Philosophy

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true? To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that concei…

I'm sure there are some members here with their favorite philosophical writings. Let's make a sort of reading list, shall we? So, what kinds of philosophical books do you like?

This was originally going to be a response to another thread, but it would have taken it sufficiently off topic (and now the thread is closed). As I went on writing, it got really long, so I'm just turning it into a very short introduction of science. Now, Popper was on the right track, but he was off by quite a bit. Popper's naïve falsification is essentially just a modus tollens. T⊃O ~O ∴~T If the theory is true, we have a predicted observation (within a certain amount of uncertainty). When we measure something outside of that range for that predicted observation, we need to throw out the theory wholesale. Think about that. Anytime we have a falsi…

Maybe somebody could explain this to me; I read somewhere that the generally accepted opposite of the emotion 'love' is 'indifference', But this makes absolutely no sense to me. To me, the clear-cut opposite of love is hate. And that makes perfect sense. Indifference cannot be the opposite of love because indifference by definition means that you don't feel anything for the person, you neither love nor hate the person. This means that in effect, indifference is simply the lack of both love and hate. A simple analogy would be to let the number 1 represent love; this means that if you take away the emotion, you're left with indifference, which would be represented b…

What is consciousness? I'll start this with an example, let's suppose someone has Alzheimer, he can forget his name, he can forget where he lives or who he are, but he won't ever forget he's something, by the way he doesn't even have to remember it, he just is. It's like there is a sense of existence in each one of us that goes beyond our comprehension - which we can call life -. When and how something inanimated became an animated being? When it started to exists? What is it that we call existence? IMO it makes more sense to believe there's "something more" we can't explain, it can't be just our brain and its impressions. Life itself is transcedental.

Okay, so I’m new here. Hi everyone. So I’m not sure why this is affecting me this severely, but I recently discovered the whole “free will vs. determinism” question, and I’ve realized quickly that I should’ve never been introduced to this idea, because I’m finding it almost impossible to deal with the notion of not having free will. It has sent my mind into this state of extreme shock, agony, and despair that almost seems insurmountable. It’s like my whole world and everything I believed has been flipped on its head. I’m serious in saying that this has sent me into a straight panic and shock. I feel like I’m having this nervous breakdown. It’s an overwhelming feeling…

The point of departure for this thread comes from my comments in the Ontology of Time thread in the Speculations section about the insistence in relativity that there are no "preferred" frames of reference, no "correct" or "objective" measurements when comparing one frame of reference (FOR) to another. From post 182, 7/2 in that thread: So, applying the above argument to "length contraction," if there is no objective "reality" independent of various FORs, then as discussed at length in the former thread, the distance between earth and sun varies with FOR, shortening radically with high speed fly-by FORs, for instance. Likewise, earth itself, measured as above, i…

Informal introduction: I've tried other places of debate and discussion (most notably Reddit and LinkedIn), but they inevitably devolve into hostility. Some are hostile and insulting from the getgo, others descend into it after a few messages. Ars Technica forum locked me even before I could even respond to questions. I'm going to give this a go one last time before giving online discussion forums a rest. Purpose of Discussion: To advance this specific topic through challenge. As of now, avenues of counterargumentation seem to have been exhausted; Additional arguments I've received after the publication of my article all fell into categories that I've alrea…

This is a serious question. I'd like to know how you would answer this in a few words. My answer to the question is the purpose of life is to get better, in a few words. "To get better" is evolution, adaption, and survival. If you get sick, your purpose is to get better. If you do well in anything, the purpose is to get better.

http://physicshead.blogspot.com/2008/03/feynman-philosophy-is-bullshit.html Physicshead, 3/11/’08: Feynman--”Philosophy is bullshit”.... How about the "block time" universe proposition? But that depends on contemporary philosophy of science. The classical philosophers are strawmen for Feynman and Hawking. (See below.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html Hawking: From Philosophy Now magazine, Sept/Oct , ‘11 Hawking contra Philosophy: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy (Final quote from intro): “ So our physics heroes are down on philosophy. …

Since we seem unable to define torture, perhaps we should start at a more fundamental level. Let's start by imagining we're all fundamentally good people (even the sociapath) and it's our life experience (psychology) that steers us away from being good; is that our fault? Does it deserve punishment? All you can do to another is deprive them of something but in doing so, you damage yourself; to condemn other's only condemns our soul. I'm reminded of The pearl.

Drawing from the rich history of philosophical inquiry and the ever-evolving landscape of neuroscience, the question of free will versus determinism remains a focal point of academic discussion. Building on past dialogues and incorporating the insights of modern scholars like Daniel Wegner**, what is the prevailing perspective in the field today, and how has the latest research in neuroscience and psychology advanced our comprehension of human agency and decision-making processes? How do recent findings on the neural basis of decision-making and the subconscious factors influencing choices impact the debate on whether individuals possess genuine free will or if their acti…

Introduction The ASD is an acronym for Adaptive Semi-Determinism, which will be defined and explained starting on next section. I made threads or topics regarding the ASD thing on other sites in past, but nearly have forgotten all about it until today. The reason for this topic is that I noticed there is no concrete case (eg. Being complete) of unified theory of everything (ToE) of everything to define and explain everything or even each individual sentient being for that matter due to qualia or freewill. For any action such as an act of smoking a cigarette overrides the logic reasoning, thus existence of freewill. Yet, we can be influenced by our genes eff…

Im sure you all heard about the ancient greek "computer" which worked with gears and mechanical parts. It could predict any planetary movements and is accurate even now. I couldn't believe it but it is true. Have a quick google and you'l see.The article isn't about this so i'l skip ahead. Im watching a program " Treasures decoded" about the turin shroud. Now they are looking into if it could have been the work of a master forger in the 13th or 14th century or if it really is a biblical artifact. Now there is no evidence of photography in that period however if you look up a device called the "camera obscura" it could be used to project images. Plato wrote about it as we…

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality. I will expound it thru questions: 1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)? 2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science. 3. Is philosophy as accurate as science? 4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can concl…

Is it the Universe created alone? Yes or not? Only Yes or Not. And which answer is more irrational? Yes or Not? Nobody knows the answer, but the question is very interesting by itself.

Hello Everyone; The words "supernatural" and "superstition" seem to be unacceptable topics in most forums, and I was wondering why, so I thought that I would ask for some clarity. I study consciousness, not the medical definition of the conscious or unconscious rational mind, but rather the philosophical definition of conscious awareness and all of the mental aspects that come under the umbrella of conscious awareness. So I look at what science has discovered, what religion has interpreted, what philosophy thinks, and also the paranormal in my investigations. But if I mention the paranormal, people state that it is "supernatural", "superstition", and spit out denials …

I often view philosophy as complete rubbish. Mindless mental musing with no goal, direction, or pragmatic capacity. However, upon expressing these views, I'm often immediately attacked with the claims that science cannot exist without philosophy. That we can know nothing without philosophy. The terms epistemology and sopolism are oft thrown around. As someone who understands the power of the scientific method but knows little about "proper philosophy", I may be a tad biased and uninformed in my opinion. So I'd like to ask everyone on SFN: What are your views on the field of philosophy?

-- This is a spin-off of the thread "is space-time a physical entity [..]" -- A lot of people think that special relativity doesn't make sense and that it's hopeless to try to understand it; we are condemned to "shut up and calculate". However, I know of two physical models that can be used to explain the theoretical predictions, and possibly there is another model that I don't know of. [edit]: To be perfectly clear, with "physical models" I here mean two competing hypothetical physical entities that have been proposed to make sense of the phenomena as described by relativity theory. Right from the start it was perfectly possible to make sense of relativity by…

Punishment for the previously punished? or Revenge for the victims of the previously punished? Or???

I agree.

After some amazing (yet personal) events have occurred the question of how did everything begin really is important to me. The last time I was desperate to know the answer was 10 years ago when I was 8 years old. I was surrounded by Jehovah's wittiness's explaining how god created the earth and then asked the question "What was god doing before he created the earth? Where did god's life begin?". And the answer I got just annoyed the crap out of me: "God is eternal, He's always been there". Then I said "but that's impossible, everything needs to have a beginning!" I was the one who would always say "Where was god a year before he created earth, the year before that an…

In numerous threads ranging from ethics regarding animal treatment to religion and general philisophy discussions about the mind I seeing what appears to be a fairly popular position repeated that animals other than humans operate on instinct alone rather than conscious thought. That even when a domesticated animal apears sentient it is just imitation or a trick of our own human projection. If animals truly operate without consciousness how does their behavior come to be and evolve? To me the implication of a purely instinctive mind vaguely implies all animals are programmed. If true what is responsible for determining that program some sort of natural god proxy; it seems…

What's people's opinions on this: can AI become sentient? Taking the wikipedia definition: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively Can a fundamentally quantitative system really experience subjectivity? Personally, given sentience has evolved at least once on Earth, i don't see why it can't manifest from a different substrate. But that's similar reasoning to given i'm alive at least once, i don't see why i can't live again...

As far as I know there are some Physicists who consider Space-Time to be an actual physical thing whereas others regard it as merely an abstract concept - Brian Greene expressed his belief that the results from Gravity Probe B confirm this. What is the general consensus of this?