General Philosophy

The reason I say this is because only one thing in reality can be self-contained, namely, reality itself.

Are there really answers to the universe and such things as philosophy?

If you've ever listened to The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC radio 4 you know of this infamous debate. So when IS a strawberry dead? What do we classify as death, is it when it is picked? or when is ceases to photosynthesize? This is a difficult question to answer, my personal thought is the strawberry is dead when it stops producing and runs out of the sugars it needs to survive

Hello, I'll just plunge right into it: Consciousness is the activation of (a) reaction. Consciousness is the activation of reactions in the brain. These reactions come from structures and stimuli that together make for certain physical, chemical and electrical states (reactions) which produce what we have termed 'consciousness'. In this sense, part of the great neural network that make up much of our brain are the parts that make up our consciousness. When we see something f.ex. that we believe "we know" or "recognize", it is only a certain state of these reactions that are present. In that way, all our consciousness is a physical (and biological probably) phen…

Go!

Doesn't the paranormal have a big effect on philosophy? Such as UFOs, alien races, ghosts, remote viewing, telekinesis, alternative science, astral projection, near death experiences, Ouija, interdimensional/mystical creatures, alternative electromagnetism, alternative gravity theories, crystal ball scrying, and prophesizing. It has big effects on human origins, the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness, determinism vs. free will, etc. Anyone else thought of this?

Not sure I'm posting this in the right subforum or not, so please feel free to move this to a better spot. Been getting fairly frustrated lately with the inconsistency of information regarding the scientific method, inductive reasoning, theory, hypothesis, proof vs. disproof... I thought you guys gave me a pretty good handle on this back when I used to frequent this forum, but increasingly, I'm growing suspicious of what I believe. And Google searching is producing mixed results. 1) I thought is was clear that science creates hypotheses via induction - that we formulate ideas about how things work by observing phenomena and inferring broad principles. W…

I tried asking this question to 8 or so answer site and didn't get anything I can use, only cosmological/origin answers. So here goes, What is the cause of existence? Why do some things exist and others not? If I can move "something A" and put "something B" where the "something A" used to be, then why wasn't the "something B" there instead of the "something A" in the first place? Maybe time is involved somehow.

Can anyone name a single testable prediction that has ever been made using metaphysics? If not, then I think all arguments in its favor here are rendered immediately moot.

Greetings all, My intention here is to challenge the celebration currently under way in regards to the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Although I'm using the Higgs as an example case, my purpose really is to ask larger questions about our relationship with knowledge. I hope you might find these questions interesting and engage them, whatever your position. The global celebration of the Higgs discovery, and the seeming lack of a counter view, seems to shine a light on a culture wide consensus that more knowledge is better, almost no matter what, even if the knowledge was very expensive to obtain, and seems to have little defined benefit. I propo…

I just read that when Marx first read Darwin's Origin of Species in 186o, he wrote to Engels that "although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." How does is "contain the basis in natural history for their view?" Also, I know that socialists later rejected Darwin and were proponents of Lamarckism, can anyone explain why Lamarckism was more consistent with socialism than Darwinism?

Is the so-called "Law of Attraction" the answer to all philosophy? Being the "cause of all events" and all. With memory and time being important components?

Hi, If time flows smoothly like a river, how can we say we have reached a moment in time? Or maybe time might move in disgrete packages, something like a movie frame, but then we must mix up movement into the argument< What are your thoughts of the question?

After prolonged thought about the slippery slope fallacy, I've decided that it is wrong to not appeal to it. Its a double edged blade. If a new hitler comes along and says, its wrong not to kill all life, and therefor your wrong for not agreeing because it's a slippery slope, they should be able to silence him for good purposes. Survival, replication, or better yet, solidification of the mind.

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?

someone made the comment "when you are ugly, don't play hard to get when you are already hard to want". OPINIONS PLEASE. i believe that beauty can not be defined and like art it has a deeper philosophical meaning, so it is impossible to lable something as 'ugly'. What do you think? P.S if you think the actual comment was a bit shallow and immature, you're not alone..

Whilst reading this, very dubious thread, I was struck by the following question, so rather than hijack it, I’ll start another. Culture, is all encompassing for each and every one of us, our individual culture informs our every thought. Could an industry really be so powerful as to thwart that? Many try, via advertising, PR etc, but by how much do they really impact our lives, other than in a superficial way; do they go deep enough? The media would have us believe companies like Coke and McDonalds do so, on a daily basis, but, as they are a reflection/exaggeration of the existing culture; are they the informed or the informer? Could one company really become so ‘all …

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…

So Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice." Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.

I think that Francis Fukuyama theory for the end of History is not true.The history is made by those who rule the world.For example the assault on 11.09.2001 in America is indicative how is made world History.This terrorist act will occupy attention of politicians and ordinary people for years ahead.The history ia a string of crimes which governs the politics and human behaviour for years.Such events is wars,change of economic system.In that sense those who rule the world invent and organize these events to rule the people so History never ends.It will end when people will not need to be ruled but such system did not exist.

Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything The Theory of Everything Premises: 1. We don’t see in three-dimensions, we see intwo-dimensional surface area. We canonly see the OUT sides of objects. 2. What we call dimensions are determined by theinversion of INside and OUTside. Oddsand Evens, binary. 3. We call this effect relativity, and it is the motion whichmanufactures reality. Nutshell: Let’s assume Spacetime is 4-dimensional. Most people translate this is as we live inthree dimensions (up down, left right, forward back) and we move through thefourth, time. It’s better translated asthe 4th dimension is IN and OUT, which…

I guess I'm sort of fanatic about fundamental computer science -- as well its philosophical tangents -- such as the meaning of computation in humanity's context and sometimes including technology in general. Over the years I have held onto deep and seemingly novel concepts, even while trying to merely grasp them myself. My eccentric views only continue to solidify and narrow. As excited as I can be to share my own ideas and thoughts, I'm not ready (prepared or even conclusive) to convey them for others' judgement. This topic applies to science as a whole. Our matter of philosophy today is: As an earnest, committed and ambitious participant in a particular field of common …

The representation of a principle isn't the real thing, but it does refer to the real thing. If principles don't exist, how does our world behave as it does? You might assert that "things" exist, defining a "thing" as what is, and a "principle" as what it does. Well, we only need to explain how things do, not how they are. If you cannot get a "do" from an "is", abondon this notion of a thing separate from its principles. D'oh! "Do" is infinitive, and "is" is present tense. I will never let this go. Please don't repeat my error. Say "get a does from an is."

When he speaks of reality the layman usually means something obvious and well-known, whereas it seems to me that precisely the most important and extremely difficult task of our time is to work on elaborating a new idea of reality. This is also what I mean when I always emphasize that science and religion must be related in some way. Wolfgang Pauli, letter to M. Fierz, August 12, 1948 It is interesting from a psychological-epistemological point of view that, although consciousness is the only phenomenon for which we have direct evidence, many people deny its reality. The question: If all that exists are some complicated chemical processes in your brain, why do you ca…

To the mainstream materialist way of thinking, only the physical is real. Anything nonphysical is at best an artifact, at worst an illusion. In this school of philosophy, at least among those who dont dismiss the reality of mind entirely, the mind is the software running on the brains hardware. Just as, if you got right down to the level of logic gates and speeding electrons, you could trace out how a computer told to calculate 7 x 7 can spit out 49, so you could, in principle Excerpt From: Jeffrey M. Schwartz & Sharon Begley. The Mind and the Brain. HarperCollins, 2002. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright. Check out this book on the iBookstore: (com…