General Philosophy

Is there a direct correlation between concepts and problem-solving?

As the title says, are cognitive rules and concepts somehow related for referencing itself?

When viewing meta cognition you need to look at a cognition recursively viewing its cognition. Instead of doing it this way, one cognition can simply create a cognition, a definitive concept, and then have the first conceptual cognition relate to the second.

As the title reads can you rebuild a cognitive system using concepts alone?

In the past, I came up with a type of philosophy called "Systems Interaction Hypothesis." It states that a given object is a "thing" or system or concept which can interact with other systems. Each interaction is known as an "event." Each event is considered a connection or point of a holistic relationship between systems. Systems are the same as the general definition of a system, which is "a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network." A class or a categorization would be considered a system. Using this philosophy/framework, you would define concepts and objects as systems and their interactions as events. You coul…

For those who don't believe in free will, like me, do you feel guilty sometimes, do you drag some guilty feelings since long time? That was my case before yesterday, i realized i don't believe in free will, so why should i feel guilty That don't mean i don't feel sad anymore, and i wish some stuff would have gone differently And that don't mean you can become a monster either i guess thinking like that, can make that you don't have to feel guilty anymore, but if you don't want to feel sad anymore/counter this at least a bit for short times, you still have to try to do what you think is good

Hi First i'm not sure to understand if here we are allowed to share what we feel, what we think/believe, to discuss and discover established concepts, to go deeper and learn If not then sorry i will find some other forum, and will come here only to ask what was this and what was that, to obtain some Wikipedia links, and will keep the thinking part for somewhere else So, we are in the Philosophy category, seems to me it's related to thinking, sorry again if i didn't read the definition of philosophy before opening this thread I wanted to share this idea, which seems to me to be philosophical, and maybe adapted to discussion To decide …

Hey all, I hope this is a cool place to discuss ideas. Sorry, my very first post is just such a big ... thingy.... I hope you like it It goes like this, we look at a certain playfield arrangement. Then we start the simulation. We start with a 1x1 playing field, and simulate all permutations. Booring. We start with a 1x2 playing field, and simulate all permutations. Boooring. Now, what I would like to do is to look at all permutations of a given playfield size. It's exhausting, I know, but not too bad. We keep increasing the field. We will see the following objects appearing: Oscillator, glider. Although, the glider will quickly leave our…

Was being able to travel to the moon worth the invention of nuclear weapons? What checks are there on scientific and technological advancement leading to dangerous scenarios.

I would also like to hear others' thoughts on whether or not science provides a path to living a meaningful life in the same vein as religion. I suppose that people can derive ethical values from scientific information, but others' thoughts on the matter is appreciated.

I would like to hear how others reconcile with the problem of evil.

A premise is offered, and then an argument follows without establishing the veracity of the premise. If the premise is false the conclusion is invalid, but the poster is proceeding as if it were true. Such as an argument based on the moon being made of cheese, and concluding the moon landings were faked because they would have noticed the cheese if they’d landed there. (the conclusion is not being used to support the premise, so it’s not begging the question/circular logic) Seems like this happens a fair amount, and it’s a failure of logic, but is there a recognized name for it?

I consider this a reducto ad absurdum, and I think that concepts such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs do a good job of addressing these (e.x. purely material needs such as procreation are at the lowest end of the hierarchy). Nevertheless, I think it does a good job debunking the conventional wisdom that the only purpose of life is procreation. Basically, if someone believes the only purpose of life is procreation, then science is useless to humans unless it somehow aids them at procreating. And for most of human history, people lived as hunter-gatherers without modern science or technology (which presumably took off with the advent of agriculture) and still met their …

Science and Objectivity Note: I have consulted forum guidelines and believe the following to be compliant! ____________________________________________________________________________________ Does true objectivity exist in science? Apparently, the pure form of it does not, certainly not in the form of 2+2=4 as would some have us believe. I have tried to be as objective as possible on this topic by consulting many references on the matter. To my surprise, none seem to claim that “view from nowhere” objectivity truly exists. Even in physics, it is not pure. But, is objectivity sufficiently objective to give us a general appreciation of reality, m…

I'm curious how others would attempt to define evil. I think that some particularly abominable acts are commonsensically evil, however defining evil in more complicated terms (e.x. such as whether evil is an "entity" or sorts, or simply destructive behavior done by humans) is more difficult.

What are your thoughts on this? I was thinking of reading some books about transhumanism and sharing my thoughts. I'm personally interested in meditation and expanding the limits of the human mind and consciousness. Some transhumanist ideas, though, strike me as controversial - such as the concept of "uploading one's mind" to a computer or finding ways to "cheat death" with technology. (These would naturally run into debates about consciousness and the problem of associating human consciousness solely with the rational mind, which I believe is an outdated concept per evolutionary biology to begin with, since the human brain contains parts which govern sub-rational behavio…

My argument is simple. Testing or rigor is a method of ensuring accuracy. However the truth value of something remains the same regardless of whether it is testable or not. As an example, if we accept that the modern theory of gravity is true, it still would have been true hundreds of years ago, even if a formal method of verifying it was not currently available. Newton's hypothesis would have been correct even prior to it being verified. (How he correctly arrived at his hypothesis prior to it having become pre-existing knowledge is a mystery, but it still would have been correct). This is not an attempt to say that testing or rigor has no worth. I'm merely poin…

In recent news here in blighty, A Banksy has been defiled by a tagger in a mask caught on camera; the Twittersphere is all of a twitter, which could have added value if it hadn't been bought by someone who didn't understand the art...

The science now is able to combine the quantum mechanics with the game theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_game_theory These refs are wonderful. And if the quantum mechanics can be united with the game theory, this means that our views in the field of philosophy must be reconsidered. I mean, that the game theory now together with ethology gives the answers to the questions about the nature of Good and Evil. Here are these answers in brief: 1) The Good is altruism, the Evil is selfishness. More exactly, the Evil is a behavior t…

Isn't it incredible, that through nature and technology, I can pick out the specific waves that relate directly to me, in the pool that's foaming from the waves of every single particle in the universe. I'm not sure of the point I'm making, just that it relates to every creed of thought with equanimity...

This seems to be an axiom (self evident truth) of philosophy and in all areas of knowledge. What reasons are there for accepting or rejecting this first principle?

Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic: Synopsis. Willem F. Esterhuyse. Abstract. We introduce more basic axioms with which we are able to prove some "axioms" of Propositional Logic. We use the symbols from my other article: "Introduction to Logical Structures". Logical Structures (SrL) are graphs with doubly labelled vertices with edges carrying symbols. The proofs are very mechanical and does not require ingenuity to construct. It is easy to see that in order to transform information, it has to be chopped up. Just look at a kid playing with blocks with letters on them: he has to break up …

....or do we really? What I believe. Does it fall under religion, philosophy or some other discipline of human thought? Here goes as follows: The John Douglas Barrow Faith Canon Drafted in the United States of America, June 10, 2024 A.D. 1. Nothing is higher in all of existence than Mother Nature, the Goddess of the Universe. Mother Nature is a human personification of nature, which might not be a conscious, living person or entity with a free will. 2. Any gods or deities which might exist apart from Mother Nature are only attributed to nature Herself. There is no supernatural or magic. Mother Nature is not above Herself. 3. Life and conscious…

Hello. I came from another account, but I forgot my username and password, and I changed to another Gmail since. I want to say that this is philosophy, so I put it in philosophy. Anyways, I have a distinguished opinion on the state of awareness (I will say awareness instead of consciousness because I type so fast that I mess up words and this is one of those words that is really easy to mess up). Awareness is a man-made construct. My thought is that the human brain is a machine, just like a steam engine or computer, except it is really complex. We don't know everything about it, but what we do know is that it is a physical object that follows physical properties. Now…

The theory of everything is not a scientific theory. It is a theory of ideas, and it goes as follows: An idea represents that which it represents, in contraposition to the fact of the idea as it is. This IS fact, it will not be disputed, and the implications of this fact are what we call science. The implications of science are not what we call fact. Fact is what exists beyond perception, to be inferred through perception but not wholly perceived given the limits of perception. As Plato put it: "The starry heaven which we behold is wrought upon a visible ground, and therefore, although the fairest and most perfect of visible things, must nece…