General Philosophy

What would happen if all money would dissapear and people only would be trading with for example art, so let's say a painting for grocery products for example, would the paintings become the same as money? Or is it then all based on opinions of a particular painting that determ the value?

Every physical entity present a certain level of information. Information exist beyond the observable physical reality (metaphysical values as consciousness, intelligence, knowledge, personality etc) Does/should physical descriptions count with the presence of information? Can/should we count information as physical entity?

Who are the Inteligent Beings? We humans are, for sure. But who else? There are three other groups who deserve human-rights-like rights. We should have rights what society will later understate as “alien rights”. We can have a simple law that says any intelligent being has human rights or better, we can define existential rights. Here are that three other intelligent beings who need their existential rights being acknowledged: 1) Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life Forms There are more than 30 billion trillion stars out there. Thinking about the incomprehensible size of the Universe, one can only come to conclusion of alien life which would inevitably result in …

Infinity is at the root of all paradox.

I would like to know peoples opinions on how the human race will evolve with technology. Given the fact robots are replacing large quantities of human jobs in almost every sector of idustry at an alarming rate, what is the future of human productivity? It is presumed when technology replaces manpower that humans on average benefit, which thus far has proved true given the advancements in the agricultural and industrial sectors, allowing for cheaper foods and general goods / modern necessities. However can this curve continue? For every job a robot replaces a new job must be created to fill the gap, not only do all replaced jobs need replacing with s…

And do other animals have sense of Art too?

Although the public acceptance of the Evolution theory and the Flat Earth theory is quite different, they are both in stark contradiction with the knowledge gained through observation, which makes them equally pseudoscientific. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for understanding their pseudoscientific character. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the Flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of Evolution theory, things are not so simple since the …

hi I googled this title and your forum can up... the reason I googled is because this has happened to Me! hard to believe I know but it's true and I have been trying to get my head around it since... has anyone else been through the same?

We can't actually see light, but to understand this, you need to understand the subjective human experience of vision. Physics tries to seperate from subjective experiences, so to physics, detection of light is seeing. Neurologically however, detecting light is merely one aspect of the visual process which results in seeing. When our eyes detect light, they send electrochemical impulses to our brains visual cortex. Here our brain creates visual representations of the objects from which the light originates. So we don't see an actual object. We see our brains representation of the object. We definitely don't see light. Light is a noumenal phenomenon. Brightness, colours an…

Art, music, literature, or any creative insight that is both innovative and unique could actually be a for of clairvoyance. A prediction of the direction the human culture might someday head. If your prediction is contemporary enough, you may experience success in your lifetime. If it is truly prophetic, you prediction may not be realized until well after your life ends, and perhaps your life would be wrought with hardship. Any examples?

If God really does exist and told you that after you die your consciousness is transferred to other human babies (memories erased) and that this process of rebirth and death happens continuously on planet Earth and across different time dimensions and ultimately you are all of humanity (when you interact with another human you are really interacting with yourself but with different life variables influencing both of you), how would you react? E.g. if you kill another human you would be killing yourself, give someone a flower would mean giving yourself a flower etc. If we had this philosophy would we become more humane, empathetic and caring humans?

Can intrusive thoughts - unwanted thoughts - suffer from constipation?

(first post) I think we are, because when you look our thirst for scientific knowledge we will quench it by finding the facts or if that is too off we would run a simulation. What better way to know the secrets of how something starts then by observing how it started. If we could run an intense simulation on a quantum computer but a more basic version of it; then could we not have some grounds to show that we are a possible simulation? Maybe these are humans thousands of years ago running a simulation of their early primitive ancestors to see the progress of their primitive ancestors and cite it as proof because of how realistic this simulation is. There are some powerful…

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Philosophy: The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. Or: A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour To me: Question science by simple to the point logic. There are numerous "flaws" in science, that absolutely make no sense, but which hold the key to become a completely NEW theory. Note, I am more than aware of different scientific equations that tell us t…

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

What a nonsense. I would suggest you learn what modern philosophers are doing. See here. Using your argumentation scheme, I could say that physics is dead because Newton got overruled by relativity and QM. Or the other way round, that what Newton did was philosophy, not physics: his main work was titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'. Both are nonsense of course. And, btw, saying 'philosophy has had its day' is a philosophical remark.

We are all subject to brain development/abnormality and past experience, neither of which is in our control. A random example, we're quite happy if a lion eats a gazel but if that lion mistakes a human for a gazel, it would be shot; that's not justice, it's revenge.

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…

Why I am a determinist Descartes had his treacherous demon that tried to confuse him and lead him astray, and the only certainty Descartes then had was his cogito. Even confusion presupposes thought. Modern physics has taken over the role of the evil demon and confusion is queen (or king?) again. With this huge difference: thought does not help anymore to create a rational world. You may think what you want, Reality does not seem to care. Atoms and photons go through any slit they feel like going through and zombie cats rule. There are many philosophical and metaphysical arguments in favor of determinism. I will give you only one. Non-deterministic m…

I can prove that water removes dirt from my skin scientifically. I can prove that music vibrates a glass in my hand by touching it. I can prove that this forum exists by writing in it scientifically. I can scientifically prove that Larry The Cable Guy is funny to me by laughing when I don't want to laugh at it as it's funny. But has anyone proven scientifically that this life we are all living is not a perfect computer simulation or an augmented reality experience and that we are truly in reality? Is there any project that tries to prove this fact? How do you all know we aren't on a Ferengi-stolen holodeck after the Enterprise crashed and they are ex…

Many papers are published claiming if one sense is weaker due to a disability than the other senses of the brain compensate. If a person is blind they have better hearing. This is what every mother tells her disabled child and so I was told it, too, as I was born blind. You scientists have even published it in peer-reviewed journal and it's so simple to test that you are all lying or insanely manipulating the truth. Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled. Not a single other sense other than visual will ever help you with this kind of problem. No matter if you were born blind or became blin…

I solved this paradox in high school when the math teacher presented it in limit theory. Since its still listed in the unsolved problems, I guess it didnt take back then. Let me see if I can make it more transpareent. Paradox Achilles and the tortoise paradox In the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. …

If we can assume a person is lying when he says: “I am lying”. Then it seems as if standard logic chains must yield an inconsistent result where his lie seems to also be provable to being the truth. e.g.: If he is lying, then by saying he is lying means he must be telling the truth. There is nothing wrong with the applied logic or even the postulate that assumes that the man is lying. nor is there any paradox. The problem is found in the statement of the problem itself which is not given in a valid form. The statement “I am lying” is a meaningless statement as its used which implies a reference to something that is not there. When making …

Description of the paradox from the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy:

I keep coming back to the fermi paradox and I wonder if beings we could understand simply do not exist due to evolution not having a goal and the direction toward intelligence as we see it is simply so rare as to have an almost zero chance of existing. I use the term hive mind to suggest civilizations like insects not a real hive mind. Such hives or cooperatives are not unusual on Earth, they mimic quite a bit of what we seem to do as thinking beings. Across the universe such "hives" could be the standard and none of them would be interested in us as anything but a possible threat or a source of raw materials. But could a mindless collective Hive develop techn…