dank, you need to respect the rights of others to talk about correcting a bad situation, even if it means fighting fire with fire. In an idealish world, your ideas would be okay. But when there are crooks who never even read what you have to say, and who would ignore all your wonderful peace if they read it... Well, maybe you are happy with the idea of someone coming and stealing your motorcycle and your computer, and maybe executing you in the bargain, but I am not happy with that kind of an idea for me!  +1 every act of free will has secondary+ effects (i.e. your resulting predestination) Stay vigilant & virtuous, brothers. Remember that we are all each others' lessons eventually to be learned as the merriest jokes So we listen harder, so that we don't always have to be the butt of one |
|
|
|
Looking forward to building a town, then city, then world...
I always did prefer winning by building the spaceship in Civ, to me it was a much more enrichening experience |
|
|
|
I dreamt something about reconciling a decently longstanding philosophical dilemma I had, but I can't for the life of me remember what that dilemma was right now... wait, what dilemma?  |
|
|
|
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/#WhaFunThe “Twin Earth” scenarios introduced by Putnam (1975) are often invoked to support an externalist individuation of beliefs about natural kinds such as water, gold, or tigers. Twin Earth, as Putnam presents it, is a (hypothetical) planet on which things look, taste, smell and feel exactly the way they do on Earth, but which have different underlying microscopic structures; for example, the stuff that fills the streams and comes out of the faucets, though it looks and tastes like water, has molecular structure XYZ rather than H2O. Many theorists find it intuitive to think that we thereby mean something different by our term ‘water’ than our Twin Earth counterparts mean by theirs, and thus that the beliefs we describe as beliefs about water are different from those that our Twin Earth counterparts would describe in the same way. Similar conclusions, they contend, can be drawn for all cases of belief (and other intentional states) regarding natural kinds.
The same problem, moreover, appears to arise for other sorts of belief as well. Tyler Burge (1979) presents cases in which it seems intuitive that a person, Oscar, and his functionally equivalent counterpart have different beliefs about various syndromes (such as arthritis) and artifacts (such as sofas) because the usage of these terms by their linguistic communities differ. For example, in Oscar's community, the term ‘arthritis’ is used as we use it, whereas in his counterpart's community ‘arthritis’ denotes inflammation of the joints and also various maladies of the thigh. Burge's contention is that even if Oscar and his counterpart both complain about the ‘arthritis’ in their thighs and make exactly the same inferences involving ‘arthritis’, they mean different things by their terms and must be regarded as having different beliefs. If these cases are convincing, then there are differences among types of intentional states that can only be captured by characterizations of these states that make reference to the practices of an individual's linguistic community. These, along with the Twin Earth cases, suggest that if functionalist theories cannot make reference to an individual's environment, then capturing the representational content of (at least some) intentional states is beyond the scope of functionalism. (See Section 4.4 for further discussion, and Searle 1980, for related arguments against “computational” theories of intentional states.)
On the other hand, the externalist individuation of intentional states may fail to capture some important psychological commonalities between ourselves and our counterparts that are relevant to the explanation of behavior. If my Twin Earth counterpart and I have both come in from a long hike, declare that we're thirsty, say “I want some water” and head to the kitchen, it seems that our behavior can be explained by citing a common desire and belief. Some theorists, therefore, have suggested that functional theories should attempt merely to capture what has been called the “narrow content” of beliefs and desires — that is, whichever representational features individuals share with their various Twin Earth counterparts. There is no consensus, however, about just how functionalist theories should treat these “narrow” representational features (Block 1986; Loar 1987), and some philosophers have expressed skepticism about whether such features should be construed as representations at all (Fodor 1994; also see entry on Narrow Content). Even if a generally acceptable account of narrow representational content can be developed, however, if the intuitions inspired by “Twin Earth” scenarios remain stable, then one must conclude that the full representational content of intentional states (and qualitative states, if they too have representational content) cannot be captured by “narrow” functional characterizations alone. i.e., what you describe an ideology as will always be different than how another might know it, lending room for miscommuication, due to the different experiential inputs we have had that end up colouring our reality. Be thoughtful.
|
|
|
|
Yeah? so what happens when someone dies, a part of reality just vanishes into thin air?
Not really. Physical death is a constant phenomonon in this lower dimensional realm of matter. The body you have today is literally a completely different body you had a year ago. I was going to correct because I read an article in the past that says it takes ~7 years for every cell in our body replaces themselves but I now think this is false. Red blood cells live for about four months, while white blood cells live on average more than a year. Skin cells live about two or three weeks. Colon cells have it rough: They die off after about four days. Sperm cells have a life span of only about three days, while brain cells typically last an entire lifetime (neurons in the cerebral cortex, for example, are not replaced when they die). So I read now, about " 98 percent of the atoms in the body are replaced yearly.". |
|
|
|
many have lots to learn from a Game like this Godspeed, good sirs! |
|
|
|
no eternal friends in politics, politics is not healthy can lead to war, war of course can cause casualties, the vast majority were children and women, politically, if managed properly can lead to well-being, in fact, a number of political figures the world many campaign about the war, whether we should choose them to be a political figure? they can be misery to the lives of people of the world, I hope not ...  "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." |
|
|
|
And quantum mechanics is retarded for thinking that we are moving from the future into the past!  so the sheer majority of people are protarded... |
|
|
|
|
What I got out of it recently was that He died so that no one else would have to necessarily die like He did for Man to change the lives around us in as meaningful a way as He was written to do, i.e. because He died(/lived)for us, we too now know how to be/live/die like Jesus. I haven't read the Book of John yet but I was told that Jesus's true mission is explained therein.
|
|
|
|
Ever wonder why an Almighty would need "your help" for something?
Well... ALL of the known Gods do. That alone is the biggest flaw of them all.
What if We're all just playin' around just 'cause? |
|
|
|
What, however, is the significance of this matter of "danger?"
I'd guess uncertainty [proves] danger [therewithin], and that [that proves] a lesson to be learned [about] uncertainty/danger Itself. In truth, then, I tell you, there is no matter there. Thank you. "Exceptions eternally?" |
|
|
|
So if we can figure out what's more moral than what god tells us, and are rejecting his version of morality already, then why do we need god?
Morality =/= existence, one might posit. I, for one, see God as a reconciliation of the paradox of (non)existence. |
|
|
|
What, however, is the significance of this matter of "danger?"
I'd guess uncertainty lies danger therein, and that there therein lies a lesson to be learned with uncertainty/danger Itself. |
|
|
|
What is the significance of this regarding what it was that was being discussed?
Burroughs: Well, art is a creative act. Paul Klee said that art does not simply render nature, it renders it visible. The artist sees something that others do not see, and by seeing it and putting it on canvas, he makes it visible to others. Recognition art. A particle physicist at the University of Texas named John Wheeler has developed something that he calls “recognition physics.” Wheeler says that nothing exists until it is observed. Well, the artist as observer is like that. The observer creates by observing, and the observer observes by creating. In other words, observation is a creative act. By observing something and putting it onto canvas, the artist makes something visible to others that did not exist until he observed it.
Ellis: And by observing it, he takes part in its coming into being.
Burroughs: Exactly. Observe and (you will) find. Withholding superimposition, I see only what may be termed a crude projection of everything. and Who is "Klee [question mark omitted]"
|
|
|
|
What is the significance of this regarding what it was that was being discussed?
Burroughs: Well, art is a creative act. Paul Klee said that art does not simply render nature, it renders it visible. The artist sees something that others do not see, and by seeing it and putting it on canvas, he makes it visible to others. Recognition art. A particle physicist at the University of Texas named John Wheeler has developed something that he calls “recognition physics.” Wheeler says that nothing exists until it is observed. Well, the artist as observer is like that. The observer creates by observing, and the observer observes by creating. In other words, observation is a creative act. By observing something and putting it onto canvas, the artist makes something visible to others that did not exist until he observed it.
Ellis: And by observing it, he takes part in its coming into being.
Burroughs: Exactly. Observe and (you will) find. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
