Post: #101

If everything in the universe instantly doubled in size - would we know?

Post: #102

Have to post this up. It fits in this thread - and is a great scene from the best TV series I have ever seen:

Post: #103

(07-31-2013 10:30 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  @The Kantian...
on half full and half empty. i dont disagree. I think these are because of language misuse. I was merely using that as starting point with regards to the common usage of the term. that is why i called them "puzzles". because they are not puzzles.

My point is really that I don't view it as a language misuse because it's not to be taken literally. Taking the phrase 'Half Empty' or 'Half Full' literally makes no more sense than taking the 'What's up?' or 'sunrise' literally.

Post: #104

On a big Colin McGinn kick right now. Am tearing through a bunch of his books. And re-reading a couple of his other ones.

Anyway - just want to pass along the following thought experiment. It is one of the best around. It is simple, but a real head scratcher.

Quote:Molyneux's problem is a thought experiment in philosophy concerning immediate recovery from blindness. It was first formulated by William Molyneux, and notably referenced in John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The problem can be stated in brief, "if a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he similarly distinguish those objects by sight if given the ability to see?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

Post: #105

Whoops! Seems the problem has being solved...

Quote:In 2003, Pawan Sinha, a professor at MIT in Boston, set up a program in India as a part of which he treated 5 patients that almost instantly took them from total congenital blindness to fully seeing.[8][9] This provided a unique opportunity or answer the Molyneux's problem experimentally. Based on this study, on April 10, 2011, he concluded that the answer, in short, to Molyneux's problem was "no".

Post: #106

List of famous philosophical thought experiments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_exp...Philosophy

Post: #107

(08-15-2013 05:50 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Whoops! Seems the problem has being solved...

Quote:In 2003, Pawan Sinha, a professor at MIT in Boston, set up a program in India as a part of which he treated 5 patients that almost instantly took them from total congenital blindness to fully seeing.[8][9] This provided a unique opportunity or answer the Molyneux's problem experimentally. Based on this study, on April 10, 2011, he concluded that the answer, in short, to Molyneux's problem was "no".

The implication here is what, that different senses are incommensurate? So, if suddenly we were given a sixth sense like the ability to detect electromagnetic fields like sharks can, we would would not be able to recognize the difference between different objects?

When you consider this problem in regards to senses humans don't even possess then the answer seems more obvious.

Post: #108

oops double

Post: #109

Awesome post about Colin McGinn's book cardguy!

Philosophy definitely feels like a game. I get the impression that perhaps sometimes philosophers don't just want the truth, they want to get to it via a certain route. That can be troublesome if it's not the right tool for the job. That's why I like Dennett's stuff - he's refreshingly open to the findings of neuroscience which are making great progress in explaining a lot of the stuff that previously vexed us. I think he put the free will "problem" to bed, for example.

Post: #110

(08-15-2013 07:05 PM)RichieP Wrote:  Awesome post about Colin McGinn's book cardguy!

Philosophy definitely feels like a game. I get the impression that perhaps sometimes philosophers don't just want the truth, they want to get to it via a certain route. That can be troublesome if it's not the right tool for the job. That's why I like Dennett's stuff - he's refreshingly open to the findings of neuroscience which are making great progress in explaining a lot of the stuff that previously vexed us. I think he put the free will "problem" to bed, for example.

Yeah, fascinating stuff. I'll have to check out McGinn's stuff sometime. I've always intended on getting into him because he seems to be the most coherent proponent of the "New Mysterian" in philosophy of mind, which is a very interesting counterpoint to my own position on consciousness, which is closer to Dennett's.

Speaking of Dennett, glad to see another fan of his work here. I got hooked on him in college when I read a copy of Darwin's Dangerous Idea that was lying around my dorm room. I also really enjoy reading him because his writing style is so engaging--you really feel like he's taking you on a journey and you almost don't want him to get to his final point because he gives you so much interesting stuff to chew on along the way. Regarding free will, I recently finished reading Freedom Evolves, and I'm still not completely sure what to make of his position. I think I understand why he believes what he does, but I can't quite manage to rid myself of that nagging objection of "but I couldn't have done otherwise" despite all the arguments he makes to try and allay that worry. I'll probably have to read it again at some point.

Post: #111

Why does religion exist?

Is it really the opiate of the masses?

Or

Is it some neurological obsession in believing in a higher power that we cannot control?

Anyone read The Protestant Ethic?

Post: #112

(06-22-2013 12:43 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I have some interesting philosophy links. I will work through them and post the best ones here.

First of all - here is a fascinating article that was recently republished in Slate.com

Quote:In the July/August 2001 issue of the late, great magazine Lingua Franca, James Ryerson published an enthralling article about an anonymous benefactor who was paying professors huge sums of money to review a strange 60-page philosophical manuscript. Slate editor David Plotz talked about “The Mystery of the Millionaire Metaphysician” on this week’s Political Gabfest, citing it as one of his favorite magazine articles of all time. Ryerson gave Slate permission to republish the story in full.

http://tinyurl.com/7og9mjb [using a tinyurl link since the forum software always messes up the links to slate.com]

Here is the website of the millionaire metaphysician mentioned in the article above. I am going to try and study his work. Looks pretty heady stuff!

http://www.comingtounderstanding.com/

Post: #113

Post: #114

(08-02-2013 05:21 PM)cardguy Wrote:  If everything in the universe instantly doubled in size - would we know?

yeah, cause different masses would feel different. I don't even know if a 12 foot tall human could survive long, blood pressure and all.

Post: #115

I like the classical philosophers mostly. But I've also got a real interest in the Neoplatonist tradition (Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, etc.). I find myself drawn to the mystics. The older I get, the more I am attracted to mystical things, like the unity of existence, the unknowable, power of unconscious forces, etc. I also like the medieval scholastics, the Italian Renaissance humanists, and the Sufi mystics. But a lot of these guys are saying the same thing...very little is new, except arrangement.
It's hard to find guys to talk about this stuff with. It's so easily misinterpreted or misunderstood. That's why this Forum really is a special place.

Post: #116

Not sure if I mentioned this earlier. But - here is an interesting tidbit from Plato.

Apparently - what Plato considered his most important teachings were never written down. Since Plato considered the transmission of knowledge by writing to be faulty - and didn't want his most important ideas misunderstood.

Socrates had a similar view except he held it to the extent of not writing down any of his ideas.

You can find more details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Unwritten_doctrines

And I am not sure if this is related - but a scientist cracked a code hidden in Plato's writings a back in 2010:

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news...y/?id=5894

I haven't studied this properly yet. So I am a little sceptical - since alot of 'codes' discovered in writing (such as the Bible 'Code') is bullshit. I remember Martin Gardner debunking that code years ago.

I can't find the essay from Gardner online - but this link gives some information from Gardner on the same subject:

http://io9.com/5950727/the-bible-code-th...ck-+-ready

Also - here is some information about an archive of unpublished work from Wittgenstein which was found recently:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/unpub...e-explored

Quote:Among the documents on philosophy and logic is a series of mathematical calculations, which represents an exploration of Fermat’s Little Theorem. The many columns of figures, written in black ink on unlined paper, comprise a continuous calculation made on many sheets that once laid out stretch to some 20 feet in length.

“It’s an extraordinary, even bizarre and yet original, series of calculations,” says Professor Gibson.

Post: #117

Interesting magazine article (from 1997) about the controversy surrounding the publication of Wittgenstein's unpublished manuscripts:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/iss...n/witt.htm

Post: #118

The last part of the paragraph just shows how much easier it is for philosophy to be abused and why some people don't treat it with respect or don't see the point of it. The standards of rigor for it just aren't as high as it is for mathematics or the natural sciences due to the nature of it's content and questions.

Post: #119

Post: #120

(08-25-2013 11:32 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 05:21 PM)cardguy Wrote:  If everything in the universe instantly doubled in size - would we know?

yeah, cause different masses would feel different. I don't even know if a 12 foot tall human could survive long, blood pressure and all.

Although that would mean that your blood vessels and everything else also doubled, so maybe we wouldn't know.

Post: #121

Some nice metaphysics from Colin McGinn (my favourite philosopher) here. Here he analyses the question 'Why is There Anything At All?'

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profi...cGinn-/797

Post: #122

(10-02-2013 12:54 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Some nice metaphysics from Colin McGinn (my favourite philosopher) here. Here he analyses the question 'Why is There Anything At All?'

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profi...cGinn-/797

Why is there anything at all?

i will take a shortcut: the scientists in me goes with higgs boson. hahaha.

why is anything at all?

Since we live in a 3-dimension universe, asking the question "why is there anything at all" could conceivably be seen as a limited, 3-dimension world question. In a different dimension the very idea of "existence" that prompts the question "why is there anything at all" may very well be completely inapplicable. Other dimension's version of "existence" (a word/concept from 3-dimension world terminology) could be radically different, as such, that the words "existence" or "non-existence" or "nothing" could be utterly inapplicable.





This also goes into the observer's effect. The precision and accuracy of measurement--by whatever means-- ascertains to us the existence of anything. As such, that very question "why is there anything at all" is predicated on our measuring instrument. Since our measuring instrument is also part of that existence, we are basically using something to measure itself to determine that something to....ad infinitum/absurdum. there is also a role for the limitation of the linguistic facility to describe our measurements. The words/concepts we use to ask that epistemological question "why is there anything at all" is a result of us being trapped in a 3-dimension universe. Then, there is the issue of schrodinger's cat.

when you ask 'why is there anything at all?' presumes a certain causality. Cause-and-effect are simply explanations --and explanation are simply models. basically, we create a temporal and linear progression path for the sake of ordering our existence. in the video mcguinn's approach it from a linguistic point of view and postulate there will be axioms. a priori. existence of things outside of explanations, if you will. he briefly mentioned concrete vs abstract...nothingness, mathematics, etc.... possible worlds...

Personally, i think the more we learn about physics quantum indeterminancy and possible dimensions, the more we realize just how probabilistic our environment is. Asking why does anything exists is by definition deterministic--which is the opposite of probabilistic indeterminancy: it presumes there is something, then, ask for explanation. in a probabilistic universe, you cannot even make the assumption to even begin to ask the question "why is there anything at all" or "why is there nothing at all"... because everything is probabilistic. Even mcguinn's unexplainable a priori itself is probabilistic distribution.

regards,

- Nemencine

Post: #123

Nice stuff. I definitely think philosophy should try and take into account the discoveries of physics. And your post above is an eloquent example of why that is a useful thing.

Below I have tinyurled a link (because this forum always messes up my links to slate.com) which might be of interest. It discusses the changing definiton of 'nothing'. The writer (Ron Rosenbaum) has a problem that science can't get a universe from nothing. But instead it is a "nothing" which follows quantum laws or has negative energies and so on. Might be worth a read.

http://tinyurl.com/msw95hf

Still - I remember from books such as Flatland (by Edwin Abbott) how confusing things can be when you try and answer questions which require higher dimenstions to understand.

Interesting stuff!

Post: #124

I study philosophy for pleasure. But - a few things I am reading make use of formal logic.

As such - I am wondering if it is worth learning propositional logic/symbolic logic/modal logic (delete as applicable since I am not sure of the differences).

So - can anyone advise me? Is it worth studying these fields - or is it mostly boring and unlikely to offer much of philosophical interest?

I can't decide at the moment.

Post: #125

Depending on what you're planning on doing with it, I say it's worth it. It isn't the most lively subject but you will be able to scrutinize arguments better.

If you're planning on doing something like law, I say yes.