01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [981][982][983][984][985][986][987][988][989][990] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
981) Arminius, 01.01.2017, 00:28, 00:36, 00:39 (5830-5832)
Topic: Subjectivity versus Objectivity.Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. Even most scientists are subjectivists - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.-----------------------Happy new year!
Topic: Philosophy versus Science.This thread should complete the thread Subjectivity versus Objectivity (**|**). Most scientists are subjectivists. They subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers. But what about philosophers for example? Are most of them subjectivists too?-----------------------Happy new year!
I am posting my 5000th post, folks.Happy new year! |
982) Arminius, 09.01.2017, 00:53, 13:44, 14:31, 14:34, 22:37 (5833-5837)
Thesis:Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and science is more empirical than philosophy.
Tortis wrote:
James contributions to this thread are excellent. Read the thread and judge afterwards.
James S. Saint wrote:
Thanks.
James S. Saint wrote:
Correct.Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Surreptitious 57 wrote:
That is trivial. It depends on the degree. A subjectivist is not the one who is not capable of being objective, and an objectivist is not the one who is not capable of being subjective.Subjectivity is the epitome of what belongs to a subject. More extremely said: Subjectivity means that everything depends on the subject. Subjectivism teaches the universal subjectivity of the intellectual truth as well as the moral and aesthetic values and denies the absolute validity.Objectivity is just the opposite of subjectivity. More extremely said: Objectivity means the lack of a subject. Objectivism teaches the universal objectivity as well as the neutrality, the practicality, also the capability of observing or/and representing objectively.So, for example, if someone denies the absolute validity, then it does not mean that this one is not capable of observing or/and representing objectively. But it means that this one does not believe in an objective world in the sense that the objective world determines everything, even all subjects. A subjectivist believes in the theory that the subject determines the objects, even the whole world.Subjectivity and objectivity are theoretical, spiritual, intellectual attitudes towards the determination of the world and the hotly favored answer to the question of the determination of the world.The extreme form of subjectivism leads to solipsism in a logical sense, to egoism in an ethical sense. |
983) Arminius, 20.01.2017, 14:53, 15:01, 16:29 (5838-5840)
Merlin wrote:
The fall - meant as the seasonal fall or as the setting of the sun (sundown, sunset). At least we as the westerners - but perhaps even all humans - are now at the beginning of the last phase of autumn (fall).Yes.
Is the aspect of agreement or disagreement the only aspect to you (**) when it comes to excellence?
By the way:The realization of the idea that the world will collapse from the inside out (**) is not only but also based on the idea that the world will make faster and faster progress, and the progress will be good (**).Dan wrote:
What, if the percentage is at least 80%, probably 99% or even 100%? |
984) Arminius, 30.01.2017, 17:53, 18:23, 18:53, 19:35, 19:59, 20:15, 21:00 (5841-5847)
A religion of humanity (**), if it should be a positivistic church (**) is absurd (typical French). It makes no sense, it is not logical, because humanity is not merely a positivistic thing, and positivism is not merely a humanitarian thing.That definition (**) is false too. Securalism is not the state of being seperate from religion (**). You can be secular and nonetheless be religious. No problem at all.
Mithus wrote:
Agreed.Only Humean wrote:
Agreed.Do not miss the point, please.
Merlin wrote:
Merlin wrote:
Merlin wrote:
Yes. Of course. You are absolutely right.
I think we should consider the difference between subjectivism/objectivism on the one hand and subjectivity/objetivity on the other and relate more to cognition/knowledge than to sociologic/psychologic issues. My thread is meant as one of philosophical/scientifical issues. This is why I opened my thread in the philosophy subforum of a philosophy forum (if it is one). And I have chosen the title Subjectivity versus Objectivity (**|**) also in order to avoid the isms.
What civility on ILP is? **
|
5846 |
5847 |
POWER IN ONE IMAGE:
Yahoo Moneys »Daily Ticker is reporting that is has discovered a Reuters investigation that reveals $8.5 trillion thats trillion with a T in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for. **
McCain's $5 Trillion Military Budget: Will It Make America Great Again?
Thursday January 19, 2017. **WORLD DEBT (**).
985) Arminius, 27.02.2017, 00:04, 00:08, 01:03, 14:50, 15:14, 22:15, 22:33, 22:51, 22:55, 23:00 (5848-5857)
Mackerni wrote:
Your misunderstanding is just too obvious. You have put words in my mouth I never used. I did not say that postivism had to with x or y. I merely said that positivism is not merely a »humanitarian« thing (see above [**|**]) - in other words: I merely said what you can read in my post (see above [**|**]). So, please, try to read my post.Mackerni wrote:
I am not complaining about it, but you are complaining about something that does not fit in your quiz.In fact, I decided to not take the quiz, because there are too many mistakes between the questions and the offered answers in that quiz.You are asking:
|
5849 |
Amorphos wrote:
»Your ideal laws?
Ill start
1. Anyone who says it means so much, it doesnt. Or going forwards youre not progressives youre conservatives going backwards, so stop stealing our shit. I propose long prisons sentences for all involved, ideally on mars or something.« **But seriously folks, if you could add one single law what would it be?
Not an addition ... yet ... perhaps a necessary reminder ... the unwritten law that has survived the ages ... »The Golden Rule« **
5850 |
»No relative degree of burden or blessing should be placed upon any individual that isn't also placed upon his government.«
»No reach of authority should ever exceed its reach of awareness.«
(Aka: »Do unto others ...«) **
My ideal laws:
1. Deinstitutionalized education and literacy.
2. Learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21.
3. Birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender. **
Everyone should just learn english, its obviously the one most people use already as a second language. **
5851 |
Arminius wrote:
»Venture wrote:
My ideal laws:
1. Deinstitutionalized education and literacy.
2. Learning at least 3 languages before the age of 21.
3. Birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender.« **To 1.) The realization could be too difficult in the case of a huge number of certain people.
To 2.) How many and, if at least 3, which languages did you fluently speak before you were 21 years old?
To 3.) Only if it is in fact a fair deal. ** **1 is the most difficult out of the 3 proposed, almost an impossible ideal. I am not yet 21 and I speak English and French (cannot read French easily, still a beginner). I am in the process of learning Latin, Greek, German, and Mandarin. I can make a change to law 2, being that 1 of the 3 should be a dead language
Amorphos wrote:
»Everyone should just learn english, its obviously the one most people use already as a second language.« **
That assertion implies a minimum of 2 languages. Add Latin or Ancient Greek as a third and now Arminius and yourself can sleep at night knowing I compensated. **
5852 |
5853 |
I compensated by requiring one ancient language and one should be English, or whatever the normative international language is of the time. The third law requires the public distribution of COCP and condoms/contraceptive barrier devices for STI protection (the first promotes menstrual health, the latter prevents STIs and pregnancy). The first and third ideal law mainly concern the general health of the female population and the advancement of family life. Most countries in desperate situations are absent of these notions. I am 18. **
5854 |
One does not have to believe any thing scientists say for two reasons. Firstly belief is an article of faith and has zero place in science.
Secondly all scientific experiments can be replicated or explained. So it is not necessary to have to just accept the word of scientists.Regarding faster than light travel : objects of mass cannot travel faster than light because time would stop and start going backwards. Which would
violate the law of cause and effect so it is not physically possible. For even photons cannot travel faster than light and they do not experience time. **
5855 |
Using a new theory producing method, dubbed RM, and a new ontology, Affectance Ontology, I hypothesize that if the inner surface of the double-slit screen was altered to a specific surface shape, particles would no longer create a significant interference pattern, but waves still would. Since a photon seems as a particlized wave, I suspect that photons would show little difference from their typical interference pattern, as their inherent wave properties would still have predominate effect. But if they also stopped showing the interference pattern, it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles. **
5856 |
5857 |
986) Arminius, 28.02.2017, 02:11, 19:06, 21:02, 21:08, 21:44, 21:57, 02:00 (5858-5863)
The current mainstream physicists say that the photon is an exchange particle too, namely an exchange particle of the electromagnetic force (interaction).
Wendy Darling wrote:
That is derailing - like: Theft is a criminal offence too. Again: Abortion is a criminal offence, a criminal act, regardless whether there are orther criminal offences, criminal acts, too.Leyla wrote:
Yes.Leyla wrote:
Nobody of them really knows what responsibility means and what criminality means. No wonder, because they are like their rulers (want them to be: weak, helpless, depressed, suicidal, dead).Where are the posts of other male ILP members here? Are they again too weak to post here? Or do they just not exist?
Kriswest wrote:
I do not see that, at least not in the sense of justifying abortion. Nothing can justify abortion. There are enough forms of birth control (contraceptive, prophylactic means). Abortion is not necessary.According to your argument, the most abused and neglected children must be found in Black Africa, because the Black Africans have - by far - the most children. There is almost no abortion in Black Africa. So, according to your argument, the Black Africans have - by far - the most abused and neglected children.Kriswest wrote:
No, because this would mean that you or Mr. X and Mrs. Y already know who aborts and who does not abort, who abuses and neglects and who does not abuse and neglect.What about birth control options for people of any age, ethnicity, and gender?
Wendy Darling wrote:
That is not true. Or: That is as much true as the statement that abuse and neglect have to do with abortion.
Wendy Darling wrote:
I think you did not.Wendy Darling wrote:
What do you think?Wendy Darling wrote:
But they all do like to abort, Darling, dont they?
Wendy Darling wrote:
If you have no arguments, then you use personal attacks. That is typical for the most ILP members, and you are obviously one of those most ILP members.Good bye. |
987) Arminius, 08.03.2017, 00:56, 03:58, 04:05, 18:33, 19:29, 22:02, 22:51 (5864-5870)
James S. Saint wrote:
Maybe Mithus wants to compare that change of PHT-values with a decay like the following one: After about 10.25 minutes a neutron (neutral charge) decays into a proton (positive charge), an electron (negative charge) and an antineutrino (no charge).
|
5866 |
5867 |
The intent of my last post was to express that one cannot compare the perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle. Although one can compare such a perception with an amount of charge that, when very stable, can be thought of as a »particle that is charged«, like a charged spec of dust, just not subatomic because subatomic particles have no substructure like a nervous system interfering with their dynamics. The mind is still built upon and sensitive to its physical biochemical substrate, the brain, thus its perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particles. **
Beyond that, one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle Physics Ontology. The word »particle« in quantum physics is no more than a number used to account for an amount of something otherwise unaccounted for, much like the square root of a negative number - purely imaginary.
A neutrino is an actual physical particle, much like an electron void of charge. But an »anti-neutrino« is not an actual particle at all, not really even a virtual particle. The idea of »anti-neutrino« refers to a neutrino amount of energy that is missing from the surrounding environment. But quantum theory physicists do not like to refer to anything except as a »particle«, a quanta (in their mathematics).
A proton is at a lower entropy than a neutron. It has more energy than a neutron. So for them to say that a neutron »decays« into a proton, is another misuse of the language (they seem to love doing that - semantics). When a neutron becomes a proton, it absorbs a positron worth of charge and a neutrino amount of mass. So in Quantum Physics Ontology, there is a missing amount of charge and mass from the surrounding universe. So to call out the missing amount of positive charge, the same amount of negative charge is claimed to be generated into the universe from the change, an »electron«. And to call out the amount of missing mass, a »negative-mass« particle, an anti-neutrino is claimed. Neither the electron, nor the negative-mass particle physically exist as real particles. They are merely referred to as »particles« so as to account for the amount of missing charge and mass energy. An objective in Quantum Physics is to ensure that in all things, there is a zero-sum.
It is a little dangerous to the mind to casually step in and out of different ontologies (language issues and thus logic issues arise), especially ontologies that are incomplete, such as Quantum Physics and Relativity. **
5868 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no doubt you have read me say that AO is a true Unified Field Theory, UFT, and Grand Unified Theory, GUT. The exact same principles from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics, economics ....« **
Yes, but for people like me, who are not familiar with Physics, it can become difficult to translate it all into the language of Psychology. In your ontology you wrote that »there is a limit to the rate of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - Inertia.«I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle, or, in other words, »the mass particle of the spirit«. What equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
But that might be completely wrong. Sorry, if I confuse this all. **
5869 |
5870 |
988) Alf, 09.03.2017, 00:35, 00:36, 01:12, 02:18, 02:50, 03:09, 03:17, 03:38; Kathrina, 09.03.2017, 08:11 (5871-5879)
Thats no analogy!
Tattoos are ugly.
Hi. I hope that I will enjoy ILP.
Hi.Communism isn't dead.
Religion has to do with faith on the one hand and with control on the other. A new religion originates before you can take away the old one.
Man wants to become god.
Topic: What is your favorite religion?
So which one is it?
Topic: Where does art come from?What do you think about the origin of art?
Are all these songs philosophical? |
989) Alf, 10.03.2017, 16:06, 16:08 (5880-5881)
Where are my posts?
Ecmandu wrote:
Suicide is murder! |
990) Alf, 11.03.2017, 20:56 (5882)
|
==>
|