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 |
<= [711][712][713][714][715][716][717][718][719][720] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2991 |
Every mass, Earth or Moon, is made entirely of affectance (as is literally all things throughout the entire universe). A »heavy mass« is merely a higher concentration of affectance than a »lighter mass«. So of course the Earth, being a larger/heavier mass directly implies a greater concentration of affectance than the Moon. Weight or Mass and the degree of affectance concentration are the same thing. **
If two such concentrations of affects are in close proximity, both with lesser concentrated fields surrounding them, the two centers will begin to migrate toward each other because the concentration/density is greater between the two particles than other surrounding areas. **
2992 |
Discussion in the other thread with James and Arminius gave me idea of this thread. **
2993 |
What prevents the Earth and Moon from coming together is what we call "tangential momentum" causing an orbiting. The Moon is in fact always falling toward the Earth, but by the time the Moon gets down to surface level, the Earth isn't there any more. The Moon is always "over-shooting" the Earth because the Moon has momentum tangent to its migrational fall.
Momentum is the property of an affectance traffic-jam, "mass particle", that is composed of affectance that is traveling more in one direction than others. As any particle begins to move, for whatever reason, it acquires more affectance within it that is traveling in that same direction as that movement and thus the particle keeps moving even after any reason for it to begin moving has gone away.
Particle momentum has some interesting properties. **
|
2994 |
Arminius wrote:
»Moreno wrote:
Of course, psychology is becoming more physicalist. **
???« ** **
Psychologists refer more and more to psychiatrists. They more and more conceive of mind and brain as the same, and words like soul and spirit are off the table - at least more and more in secular portions of the West. The physicalist model is presented as having won, which is an effective propaganda technique and this is bought by more and more of the educated West. Of course there are vast numbers of studies of minds and cognitive processes in the field of psychology that do not refer to neuroscience, etc. But there is a gradual shifting to thinking of reality, including people and their minds, in physicalist terms. I think that was what I was getting at back then. **
James S. Saint wrote:
»Moreno wrote:
If only it was becoming more pagan. **
???« **
Referring to Arminius other thread at that time where it was asked something like if paganism could save things. **
Paganism being vitalist, for example, where physicalism is a philosophy of death. Everything is actually dead, life is an appearance scum on the surface of a dead universe. Consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon. Brains (and thus minds) are machines. And so on. **
2995 |
2996 |
|
2997 |
2998 |
The trick is being able to entertain other or even opposite ideas at the same time. **
What else evidence is required when we see it happening all around automatically! **
I was talking about definitions, and they do not have evidences. **
I think that perhaps you are asking for the explanations for different definitions of nano. **
There are two different scales; micro and nano. **
But, over the time, the term nano is used more like a metaphor for all small things .... **
But ... things are either misrepresented or blown out of the proportion. **
Almost all below 1 mm things are being called as nano and that process is nanotechnology .... **
For instance, nonstick taflon coating on the utensils is now claimed to be done by nanotechnology. Tennis rackets are being claimed to be made by nanotechnology. But, strictly speaking, all these claims are false.
When we are unable to make and control even a single nano thing in normal circumstances so far, how these things can be claimed as being made by using nanotechnology!
But, the problem is that most of the people do not understand this. They get the false impression of the reality. **
Arminius - »But why do you not tell us your definition of observation ? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.« ** **
Sanjay - I have been given already. Perhaps you did not notice. Here it is again -
Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.
Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages. **
2999 |
We still have a serious communication issue. **
What do you exactly mean by tangential momentum, and why can a tangential momentum cause an orbiting? ** **
That is something everyone already knows about, so perhaps I am not understanding your question. **
|
3000 |
3001 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»In the case of the Moon, there is a vector of migration toward the Earth and also one parallel to the Earth's surface ("tangent") directly related to the orbital velocity. The combination of the two vectors causes the Moon to curve around the Earth rather than go directly at it or fly off away from it.« **
.... **
In RM:AO it is a matter of momentum and migratory acceleration (aka "force of gravity").
The only difference between my explanation and that of pre-relativity days is that I refer to two vector components of migratory motion rather than two vector components of forces. **
3002 |
3003 |
By »why« did you mean »how did it get started« or »why is it still there«?
|
3004 |
3005 |
Science alone can never tell if anything is true, only that it hasn't been proven false ... yet. **
3006 |
3007 |
And after Kant, Nietzsche .... **
|
3008 |
3009 |
3010 |
No matter how you cut it, the distance between 0 and 1 is infinite. Saying 0+1=1 doesn't actually solve that problem. **
|
3011 |
Mr. Reasonable, you people have have wrong picture of lower class. Vehicle insurance is compulsory everywhere, including India.
But, I do not think that a person surviving on minimum wages should have facilities like car. In India, a person surviving on minimum wages cannot think of two wheeler, even in the dreams, forget about car. This is precisely the difference between two countries.
Secondly, car is not a necessity by any stretch of imagination, no matter in which part of the world are you living. One has to use public transport under such circumstances, even if it takes some more time.
MR, when you are surviving on minimum wages or job guarantees, you have to live a life of survival, not luxury. It is as simple as that. Government is responsible only for the survival of the poor, not their luxuries. If one wants all, he has to come in the open ground and fight the competition.
Asking for job guarantees and minimum wages is some sort of help/donation. And, such people cannot be choosers. They are not supposed to have luxuries or live at par with those who are fighting competition. This is where liberals tend to cross the line of rationality. **
3012 |
You (**) don't seem to understand the psychology of this site.
At ILP if you want to find out what's wrong with something or who all hates it, you don't say, »I hate this. Now who's with me?« Instead you praise the absolute perfection of it, proclaiming that it is greater than any philosopher, especially Kant and Nietzsche, or any philosophical perspective. Point out the details that you want to have criticized; »The book points out the real truth that mathematics really is the supreme understanding, fourth spatial dimensioning is unquestionably true, ... blah, blah, blah ...«.
From that, you will get what you [say that you] seek.
ILPers love to hate (it's an ego thing). **
3013 |
This thread will contradict that.... not everyone is on an ego trip here, when they agree with a topic, they generally won't comment on it, and let the topic stand for itself. **
You and James make it sound like we all have ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) - it's just parsimony that everyone generally agrees with an OP and doesn't reply to it. ILP is corrective, not egoistic. **
3014 |
|
3015 |
I can't share Your negative about it, James, since it seems to advance by Habermas the notion of some similarity with Marcuse's One Dimensional Man and and the dawn of the Wasteland. It tries to be integrative, so I hold my opinion in suspense, until, I like Reasonable have a chance to look at it. **
- Https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alice+cooper
(Alice Cooper [Vincent Damon Furnier], School's out, 1972).
3016 |
I am sure that theists will not argue against the notion that atheists/agnostics have intellects equivalent to that of a newborn (if that is what atheists are arguing for). **
3017 |
The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury. ** **
3018 |
|
3019 |
Granted linguistics has a function to present objects to consciousness, but the triad goes like this:
Linguistics > objects > consciousness, and here is the clincher, beneath the level of linguistics, then, there is no presentation. What of the contention, that it is like this:
Consciousness > objects < linguistics? this would devolve the object below the level of selective awareness? Here, a functional linguistics would become inadequate to explain it. The language would still explain the function of presentation by way of symbolic transference to meaning, but that's all. It cannot go above or beneath the transference.The object would and the objective would becom flat lined, one dimensional, and reductive.
Within an inductive language, a production of meaning would no find its place, or function, except if replaced by probable meaning and utility. the presentation would not guarantee an intended interpretation. Therefore function would become uncertain. You would not even need to delve into questions relating to »reality«. **
3020 |
Philosophy also has to be earned, besides learning. **
Let me take two different analogies here to explain the issue. In maths, we have positive and negative numbers. Right. Here, you can say that negative numbers are »apositive«. That would be true if maths would not have zero. But, as the maths also has the concept of zero, which is specifically designed to state such a position, which is different both from positive and negative, thus you cannot define zero as apositive. **
I'm the same way, in the real world, we have positive charged particles like photons and negative charged particles like electrons. **
Both of these are charged but opposite ones. **
And, we have neutrons also which are completely free from any charge. **
But, do we call neutrons as apositive, just because they lack positive charge? **
Or, consider electrons and neutrons the same? And, if not, how can you put all non-godbelivers into one basket? You have to differinciate between those who believe that there is no god and who do have belief of either side. **
This second anology fits perfectly on our issue in hand. Theism is like protons, positively charged and atheism is like electrons, negatively charged. But, agnosticm is different from both. It stands apart and presenting it as an opposite of positive only is unjustified. **
3021 |
3022 |
One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is alo impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says »God does not exist« or »I do not know that God does not exist«. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.
The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called »Indios« or »Indians« didn't even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God. ** **
The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not« / »non«, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme »anti« means »against« / »contra«. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s). ** **
Another example:
Are antifeminists called »afeminists«? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism .... ** **
There are many in the atheist community .... **
... who don't feel that newborn babies should be called atheists. **
|
3023 |
Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't change the fact that newborn babies are atheists. **
Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theology«, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words.
When it comes to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know what it means to be that. Additionally the legal personal freedom (which is much restricted anyway) could and would not be guaranteed. ** **
Arminius wrote:
»One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. (** **) ** **
Not necessarily true. **
If the god which is posited is logically impossible, then one can with 100% confidence say that the existence of such god is impossible. **
Arminius wrote:
»Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says God does not exist or I do not know that God does not exist. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.« (** **) ** **
The former would be a gnostic atheist and the latter an agnostic atheist. **
The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not« / »non«, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme »anti« means »against« / »contra«. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s). (** **) ** **
Do you think it is possible to know that god does exist? **
In most cases, antitheists are atheists. **
Arminius wrote:
»Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theology«, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words. ** **Correct that newborns don't know those words. But you are incorrect on two other accounts .... **
3024 |
From http://www.dictionary.com
atheist
[ey-thee-ist]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. **That definition might be valid for English speaking humans, but it is not valid when it comes to philosophy, to science, especially to the original meaning of the word, because that is the only valid definition.
3025 |
Emm ..., since it is an English word, how can it be false English? **
3026 |
Arminius wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't change the fact that newborn babies are atheists. **
The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.« ** **
Unless a newborn baby holds a belief that a god exists, then it is by definition an atheist. **
Whether or not one knows what the word means isn't a requirement for one to be an atheist. **
However, if you can find a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what 'atheist' means to be an atheist, then I'll concede that you're right. **
If a logically impossible god is posited, one can know for sure that the existence of such god is impossible. **
One is free to posit a logically impossible god or a logically possible god. **
I'll posit one right now. A timeless, spaceless god named Dexter who periodically manifests himself in reality by appearing as a 19 foot tall 3 headed monster who breathes green bubbles. That's not a logically impossible god, as it can't be falsified. But if I were to posit a god which always loves Arminius and also always doesn't love Arminius, then such a god would be logically impossible - as one cannot always love something and also always not love that same something. **
Some atheists are gnostic in their knowledge - or are gnostic atheists. **
Atheism doesn't address the issue of whether or not it is possible that a god exists. It only addresses the issue of whether or not one holds the belief that a god exists. So to say to be an atheist, one must "not know and says to not know whether it is possible that gods exists or not" is not quite accurate. **
What is the difference between a »non-godbeliever« and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists? **
Think back to when the first person came up with the idea of a god. **
Were all people before this person something other than atheists? If they weren't atheists, then were they theists? **
3027 |
So what are you saying that the ancient Greek word actually meant? **
==>
|