General Philosophy

How do you prevent being insulted or offened.. Here is the answer.. Why do people prefer to have Opinions about Ideas, Instead of Just Sharing their Own Ideas, They prefer to share their opinions about other peoples ideas.... But Instead of Insulting each others Intelligence with your Opinions... Share your own ideas, Not Your Opinions about other peoples ideas... How can people be insulted by an Idea? when the idea is not an opinion, it is simply an Idea... " Your idea insults me "? how is that even possible? People use opinions to insult or offend each other, Not Ideas.... So dont feel insulted or offened by an Idea.... Share you own idea, not opinions about oth…

When people aquire the assumptions of being more knowledgable than someone else, most of the time it gives them a Superiority Complex. Knowledge is Not Power.. Knowledge is Not Freedom.. " Knowledge is Survival.." So now, think about this... Tell me why you think Knowledge is Power, Tell me why you think Knowledge is Freedom... Tell me why " Knowledge is simply about Survival "

When people have a sense of Authority over people, they create the Illusion that their Authority defines their Intelligence.. Having Authority over others does not make you Intelligent, and It does not mean all your choices are correct...

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....

1. "If tomorrow comes" is a truism. There is no known law which can predict if we exist the next day. 2. Work today like there is no tomorrow. (This follows from 1 - if we intend to make the most of our lives). 3. Replace tomorrow with today - whenever tomorrow becomes today.. (This involves nothing more than a paradigm shift). 4. Then tomorrow will never come (follows from 3) 5. This marks the end of worrying and the beginning of enjoying your life to the fullest. Is this the right strategy to making your own destiny ?

The internet has made people who are geographically distant socially connected. Does this augur well for society as a whole ?

People dont seem to realise that they are actually OBJECTS, as opposed to real living organisms. Every person, at the most fundemental level, is a collection-mark me closely here- a collection of responses to a sequence of stimuli Even the tiniest action, voluntary or otherwise, of a human, being comes under that definition. (A Programmed Response to a particular stimulus x 1000000000000) = a human being Responsive Matter, you could call it. No person therefore is REAL; as to be REAL you'd have to be outside your programmed rules. To behave in a way other than what your innate programming dictates you do in response to a particular stimulus. Its kinda cut…

Is there a relation between charity and the brain's dopamine reward system ? Why is it that some of the super-rich and the best philanthropists ?

Why do some people spend hours at work. It is observed that people with Asperger's syndrome are workaholics. Is work an attribute of the mind? In fact, in Japan, work related suicides (karoshi) are said to be not uncommon.

I am not going to commit suicide. This is not a plea for help. Please stay on topic for the question I am asking. I already know life is meaningless, and when I was younger I used to suffer from "dark" depressions where the thought of living was unbearable. I got older, learned a lot about Buddhism, and Stoicism, and they helped give me a lot of perspective. It took me a long time to come to accept how inherently bad the world is, and not want to just fall apart under the thought. Now, I can deal with the thought of getting up every single day without anything in my life improving (which is saying a lot because I have literally nothing I care about), and still get up ever…

there are a few posts i've seen by members here which are along the lines of "logic is branch of mathematics." is "logic" considered indistinct from "mathematical logic?" if so that seems to be a narrow generalization of what logic is(at least in comparison to the descriptions i can find elsewhere such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic),but i could be wrong and that's why i wanted to ask.

I have been staring into my garden pool , looking for some little red fish I introduced the other day . A frog keeps surfacing and looking me in the eye . I have my suspicions . Maybe they do not exist any more. That is what prompted me to think EXISTENCE is everything . All important . Our greatest treasure. With it everything can be appreciated , without existence , we can appreciate Nothing . '0' zero . Mike

in this idea, the physiologic structure of the human brain has 3 components, Reptilian, Mammalian and Human. Prior to the development of the human, the mammalian/reptilian co-processors were in charge. Prior to that, just the reptilian. This heirarchy of control has a built-in conflicts caused by jealousies between domains of who has active control of the human organism, of these 3 structures. This internal psychological competition is amplified by a physiologic need for each domain having to share a common nutrient supply. When we were 2 brained mammals, the brain/body size was smaller, allowing the body an easier job to supply the brain. There seems other interesting pr…

Are there NON-HUMAN concepts, that cannot be approached rationally? Some come to mind, nothingness being the big one.

Rather than send this (Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)) off topic, I'll start anew, but after 41 pages of, essentially, just gainsay in the face of a moral/ethical imperative, I have to ask. Is it culture? Is it cognitive dissonance? Is it belligerence? Is it self interest?

In the Religion section there's a thread 'Was Jesus a real person?', though the Bible is a book of metaphors. So is it logical for us to interpret things literally when we know that symbolism plays a central role? I also noticed that some content was removed: Moderator Note Posts hidden. This is a discussion of history, not personal testimony/preaching. Is a discussion on Jesus a discussion of history? Or, would it be reasonable to take the symbolism into consideration? Does logic get the better of us sometimes? Is there such a thing as being "too" logical?

I searched everywhere on the Internet but couldn't find a conclusive answer. My question is: Do mathematical entities (like numbers or probability distributions for example) really exist in the universe or are mathematical entities just a human invention? In other words, is mathematics really out there in the universe or is mathematics just a tool that humans invented in order to describe the universe?

History shows that some important technological advancements and scientific discoveries were ridiculed as 'insanity' when originally proposed. Today we know better. And yet, we sill ridicule. So, can science benefit from anonymity?

That's pretty bad metaphysics if it uses Aristotle's logic. The topoi which admit QM do not admit a Boolean structure, but rather a more general Heyting structure in which the law of excluded middle does not always hold. It's entirely off-topic from the source thread, so I started a new one. I'm dying to know: how do you get QM from Aristotelian logic when QM can't coexist with a Boolean structure?

In a recently bumped thread, ajb said the following: But that's not the first time measurement has been mentioned. There was, for example, this half tongue-in-cheeck exchange between myself and PeterJ: Why look at the level of the mercury in the thermometer when you can just measure temperature? Oh, yes, because you can't. But it's only half tongue-in-cheeck. There's a real issue here. Measurement is an important part of science, so let's talk about it. We can discuss it in a forum, if you will. What, exactly, is measurement? Is objective measurement possible? It seems like it's got to be a specific type of observation. It seems like Measureme…

If the multiverse theory is true, it means that there are infinite number of planets, in fact infinite number of planets exact same as ours. There are infinite number of ''ME'' out there living the exact same life as me. Now you may agree or disagree of the theory, but if we take the path I did, which is that I believe in the theory, then I want to ask some basic questions: 1. If the theory is right and there is infinite multiverses out there , existing for eternity without beginning and without an end, does it mean that I personally , after I die, will live again the EXACT same life as I did this life, because according to quantum physics, energy can't be destroyed. Th…

ajb inspired me to create a thread about the nature of measurement, but the same quote inspired this thread. As far as measurement as a criterion for ontological reality, I'm even less sure. We can measure energy, but it's not clear that energy exists. Many people are hesitant to give positive ontological status to things which are frame dependent. But energy isn't just frame dependent in that my energy count is different from your energy count. Energy is co-ordinate dependent such that my energy count is different depending on how I count. Wile E Coyote on a cliff is an example. If I count the cliff level as y=0, then Mr Coyote has no gravitational potential en…

I created a similar topic regarding math and logic but my initial OP was totally incorrect and secondly this delves a little deeper into other factors of math. The simplest way to express maths is to postulate the existence of a single value. Once we have a value we then postulate 2 basic operations that this value can use, addition and subtraction (multiplication being a function of addition and division being the abstract inverse of multiplication, powers being extension of multiplication and root being extension of division (specific forms of that operator)). From here we have an infinite set of natural numbers using just addition and once the other operators …

Without meaning to be argumentative, John, I'd say all your claims above might most charitably be described as dubious. (I've numbered them for convenience) (1) The definitions are clear enough? This is news to me. Please share these definitions with us so that those poor beleaguered souls who've spent decades trying to explicate the concept of "evidence" in science, and meeting very little success, might finally rest. It seems to me that "evidence" in science is simply that which people commonly regarded as being involved in the scientific enterprise call evidence. (2) Well, that's one opinion. It's not the opinion of Karl Popper and his followers, though,…

What is a Thought Atom? Such a notion has miniaturization, densification and visualization capacity effectuality inherent. Author: David Elkins