Philosophy Now Forum

Atheism is the non acceptance of the proposition that God exists But it is not the rejection of the proposition and while the distinction is subtle it is also an important one Most atheists are agnostic so while they may say they dont believe in God that is not an absolute position No. atheism and ...

The word "intuition" doesn't even appear in any of these pages! Perhaps French works different to English but... The root of the word "intuitionism" is "intuition". The root of the word "intuition" is intuit . intuit verb . understand or work out by instinct....

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:50 am The term 'atheist' refers to a human being with a BELIEF.

No, it doesn't. It refers to a human being with a DISBELIEF.

Let's try code to teach lessons... As if that could help! LOGIC CLASS Start :Lesson One: A → B ⊢ ¬(A ∧ ¬B) :Lesson Two: A ∧ (A → B) ⊢ B :Lesson Three: ¬B ∧ (A → B) ⊢ ¬A :Lesson Four: A ∧ ¬B ⊢ ¬(A → B) Print "That's all you need to know!" Print "Where's the problem already?" End ...

logik, your definitions and angle on this make no sense. if one is chiefly concerned with their own gain while indifferent to others' then they will gain nothing since gaining for self requires consideration of others, their reactions and thus gains or losses. every time you gain something for your...

Because it's a logical argument and the validity of a logical argument in assessed independently of the truth of the premises. This keeps going over your head, eh? My grudge with "logical validity" is not about the truth of the premises. It's about the IMPOSSIBILITY of falsity of the conc...

I'm talking about category theory. It's pretty abstract. If you've seen any abstract algebra (groups, rings, fields) then you can think of category theory as "abstract abstract algebra." It's a structural way of thinking about mathematics that was invented in the 1940's. In recent decades...

Perhaps you never heard of the sound deductive inference model (SDIM) before? ALL MODELS ARE WRONG A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argumen...

selfish means you gain at the cost of others, and where they are not compensated at a later point, or rather it is not your intent or expectation that they will be. No. The loss of others is not mandated in the definition. Simply not considering whether the other person loses or gains is sufficient...

Thought is an infinite self referring positive feedback loop. It needs not be infinite. A recursive search function terminates when it finds what it's looking for. The only conclusion to thought is to simply stop thinking. If one sits and watches from whence thought and sensations arise, this is th...

That seems a little nutty, you are aiming for inconsistency. That seems like a strawman. My aim is to minimize inconsistencies. Your aim is to eliminate them because you have no viable strategies for containing the principle of explosion. I do. Para-consistency. Consistent logics are all-or-nothing...

I agree with you. What I meant by “others” was not the recipients of someone’s altruism, but rather I meant non-altruistic people in general, or perhaps selfish people. For them altruistic behavior most likely would be difficult. We are tripping over language... I am saying that altruists are selfi...

No you are wrong. We do not require a whole new formal system every time that we add an axiom. We only need this when axioms form contradictions. This is where you and I differ fundamentally. When you hit a contradiction you invent a new formal system. Because you are optimising for consistency. I ...

Every axiom must have an associated finite string. It cannot simply sit inside someone's head. Sure. But the meaning of strings is different from system to system. 2+2 = 4 (decimal) 2+2 = 11 (ternary) IF "=" means "semantic equivalence" ∴ 4 = 11 IF "=" means "symb...

Altruism is selfish of the altruistic individual. For everyone else it’s a pain. Don't think so. I think altruism is nature's way of setting up win-win relationships. You <do some selfless act> and you get rewarded for it with dopamine. You are happy. The person you helped is happy. Game theory at ...