General Philosophy

Statement 1 (S1): Birds don't fly Statement 2 (S2): Frank Sinatra is not a poached egg Both these statements share one thing in common: they are both screamingly obvious; the difference being that S1 is obviously false (it is true that some birds don't fly, of course, but "[all] birds don't fly" is false) while S2 is obviously true. Now, if the village idiot, or the village madman for that matter, were to tell you either of the statements above, you might smile politely, make some excuse about a dental appointment, and disappear fast. On the other hand, however, were S1 or S2 advanced by the village genius, one might stop to wonder "Why is an intellige…

Consciousness Always Exists Part I: Let us consider the following statements: A. No situation exists. B. Statement A is true. C. A situation exists in which statement B is true. D. A situation exists.(1) E. Consciousness exists. F. Statement A can never be true. *** I claim that statement F is true. *** Proof: If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!) Clearly, A can never be true.(3) Since A can never be true, it follows that F is true. *** If A is never true, A is a…

What follows assumes that no life after death exists and that a dead person returns to the state of pre-birth. This is not necessarily my opinion, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion. It is commonly said that life is a gift, or at least that you are lucky to have it. Being born means beating astronomical odds, so even the scientifically-inclined tend to characterize it as something that one should be happy about having. But is it really more fortunate to be born than to die in utero? Leaving all sentimentality aside, let us consider what life is like. 1. After birth, humans begins to have desires. Now, a desire is a form of discomfort. It drives us…

In 1996, Nature found 60.7% of scientists expressing disbelief or doubt. 72.2% of the "greater" scientists do no believe in God. About 20.8% are agnostic. The article in the link below calls the "greater" scientists those who are National Academy of Sciences (NAS). http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Are we better off having invented the printing press? I don't want to block the rabbit hole, so I'll leave it there for know and flesh thing's out as and when.

What does it mean for something to exist? Does it even make sense to define 'non-existence'?

Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"? If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community. But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence. Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"! When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot. Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism? Are most scie…

Please consider these three posts as the start of this thread; they were copied from the "Are all religious people hypocrites?" thread. (One little mechanical comment: I have trouble quoting quotes on this forum.) ​You rather seem to have missed the point that the theists don't have one either. Well, theist believe they do, but you don't believe they do. You're obviously someone who doesn't believe, so you don't know how believing can so strongly motivate a person. Let me say then that theists thoroughly "believe" they have an invariant source of moral code with inevitable and eternal consequences. Let's say a man finds a money…

the light that burns the brightest burns out the fastest, and we have burn so very bright, so is life on this planet better off without humans?

I have personally experienced precognition many times, which being scientifically minded has always led me to try to find scientific explanations. None of my paths of investigation, multiple dimensionality, quantum physics etc. have ever fully satisfied me due to one thing. I find it impossible to use for personal gain. I don't mean the "using it for personal gain will lead to disastrous consequences" rhetoric. I mean literally not possible. The merest thought of a personal gain in my subconscious or similar, means I am wrong. To give two examples to explain. I knew Prince William would have a boy and name him George. I never doubted it, but I did not place a bet on …

I am not sure where to post this so have used Philosophy (of Science) to allow latitude in exploring this subject. I hope it will make a welcome change from the current Philosophy subject we have surely now done to surely death. Dimensional analysis is a very powerful technique in Science and is one of the things that distinguishes Science from Pure Mathematics, but to repeat the title, Is it necessary for all equations in Science to be dimensionally consistent?

Just saw this article posted in a Facebook philosophy group I'm a member of, and I wanted some feedback on it from more thoughtful atheists. This seems to be the place for that, so here goes. https://rightsmarts.com/atheism/ A strong case is made that atheism is dead as an intellectual endeavor, with some bold claims about science. A few brief claims: Science has shown the universe is designed. Science has shown life is designed. Abstract concepts like logic, morality, and mathematics has shown that there's more to existence than the physical. God believers built science. There's a lot more, but those are some of the bolder claims off th…

I'm a proponent of the computational theory of mind, which proposes that the brain is an information processing system and can therefore be emulated on a Turing-machine type of computer. This philosophical approach to consciousness meshes well with modern neuroscience, which so far has not found any mechanisms in the brain which cannot be understood by classical mechanics. If the computational theory of mind is correct, our thinking process is of course deterministic. Who here ascribes to the computational theory of mind? If you don't, why? A counterexample to the computational theory of mind which still relies on natural processes would be Penrose/Hamero…

My previous approach to this subject got bogged down with a lot of my personal ignorance, so my intent here is, as per title to give examples of the actual debate among spacetime ontology scholars and invite comments. I found the most basic question about the ontology of space at the NASA Astronomy Cafe, Q&A section: ................. "Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General r…

Brought up here; I'd never heard of this conundrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton's_dome http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/ Basically, there is a dome shape and the top is a point of unstable equilibrium. There is a solution where an object at the top can spontaneously move off of the top, and once it does, continues accelerating. This is offered as an example of a violation of determinism, as the motion is purportedly spontaneous. But I have a quibble with (at least) one of the arguments I don't think that creating a new version of the first law means that you can claim this is consistent with Newton's laws. The emphasis on "uniform mo…

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…

Posting this in General Philosophy if that fits. My question is this: "Is there any kind of a test (perhaps along the lines of the Turing test) that we could administer to a sentient creature (or a machine) that would allow us to define or determine whether or not the said subject was actually conscious? I don't know,but it seems a central feature of my existence that I tell myself that I do possess consciousness but I cannot see a way to verify this other than to take it as a matter of a priori belief. Could there be any possible tests or is it just the Turing test that might be applicable? Apologies if this question has been aske…

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true? I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on "unproven truths" called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the "unproven truths" (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn't proven (ration…

What I noticed about myself from a young age is that I "knew" instinctively what logic and philosophy were without learning about them from anyone or anywhere. Anyone else feel that logic and philosophy are inborn abilities?

Hi everyone, I just want to know your opinions on this. LINK DELETED Thank you.

Does free will exist ? Any ideas ?

Well?

I remember watching The Pursuit of Happyness and how the subliminal definition of happiness in the movie didn't line up with my experience of happiness. The movie equated financial success with happiness while I equate physical activity(ie. adequate serotonin levels), a healthy diet and a minimalist approach to life with happiness. I've also observed that society is driven towards acquiring intelligence and not happiness. If you had a choice to be either intelligent or happy but not both even though it is possible to be both. Would you rather be intelligent or happy? And why?

"The Little Red Hen", "The Emperor's New Clothes" , "The Lion and Mouse" are all moral stories. They teach both moral thinking and virtues. We would read these to children, and then ask, "What is the moral of that story?" The answer is an explanation of cause and effect. The Little Red Hen didn't share her bread because no one would help her make it. "This story shows us that when you work together, you can have fun, too. You also get to enjoy the rewards of your work." "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about honesty. The little boy dared to say the king had no clothes, when everyone was tricked into in believing only ignorant people couldn't see the king's be…

It is my opinion that there are only 2 consciousness states,Manual and Autopilot.We “toggle” all the time between these 2 consciousness states either in awareness or unawareness.If we “toggle” in unawareness then clearly we are a “prisoner of consciousness” to coin a phrase. However, if we have awareness then we can exercise control over which consciousness state we wish to reside within in any given moment.We can bring ourselves out of Autopilot and into Manual. Initially, we are unable to stay in manual for long, we just “toggle” back to Autopilot until we bring ourselves back into Manual again and so it continues. It is my opinion, that awareness is d…