Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 311 matches
April 11th, 2012, 1:13 am
(quote not shown)That is completely irrelevant, the subject is very selfexplanatory. Out in the real world people get fired from their job if they demand every little word explained, and worse no one could ever make a simple correspondence. Scott, you should immediately see that OP makes his first m...
April 11th, 2012, 12:28 am
Some actions are compulsive and will disregard logic and reason, or genetically caused why it isn't always fair to say it's selfish.RJG wrote:We are all selfish, some are just more obvious than others.
April 10th, 2012, 10:13 pm
Most of western philosophically logic is outdated, and needs updated to take account for mental defects and such found in psychology.
Hopefully ailiens isn't emotionally based thus can see things objectivily, and free of compulsivness.
Hopefully ailiens isn't emotionally based thus can see things objectivily, and free of compulsivness.
April 10th, 2012, 10:05 pm
Science usually prove their points beyond reasonable doubt with evidence, religion just postulates this and that without evidence, the groupthink, sheeple, naive and simpleminded ..etc, will be swayed by what relates to their inner selfish desires.Eveready wrote:Why is it that those pertaining to love logic and the scientific method especially math, allow math to call an equation infinite and can call the big bang infinite years [millions] of evolving [which is a theory not evidence] yet can`t allow others from theistic reasoning to allude to a god of infinity?
What makes math or scientific evolutionaryn infinity theory more acceptable than the theistic infinity called their god?
The answer to this question from both atheists claiming science is theirs and theists would be welcome.
April 10th, 2012, 10:02 pm
What's the point of debating if both persons are ignorent, then it's blind leading blind. Imo the point of education is to prepare one self for the future, to seek knowledge and not depend on others to provide knowledge but welcome it if it happens.
April 10th, 2012, 9:32 pm
I would say both, one can do philosophy about the future, that's extremely importaint for the survival of buisnesses in our industrialized world, to stay competettive.Belinda wrote:Is this thread supposed to be philosophy or futurology?
To understandour present, we can grasp our future.
April 10th, 2012, 6:09 pm
(quote not shown)The wisemen says that logic is mathematically based, which it's not, it can be mathematically based, but that's only half the truth. There's an old saying "what goes must come down", it's logic, but isn't at all mathematically. Just because some wise people says something,...
April 10th, 2012, 5:52 pm
Looking at statistics it will eventually. If we will follow Moore's Law 1k years from now, it would be very strange if not.Stevenct56 wrote:As I've said earlier, computers have a very narrow and mechanical consciousness now and it'll continue to expand. However, it will be highly unlikely that it can match the complex and dynamic ocean of the human minds.
April 10th, 2012, 3:01 pm
(quote not shown) Hexhammer is wrong, we don't have computers that can understand meaning. I'm a professional translator. I use computer aided translation software every day. My computer doesn't understand the meaning of a single word, neither does that iPhone. If you would like to understand more a...
April 10th, 2012, 12:02 pm
(quote not shown)Yes, in far future it should be possible, we already have computers that can decipher primitive meaning in our language. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKRwV3DTVLo In max 50 years, we should have computers we can have a normal dialogue with, in 100 years we probaly see the first ste...
April 10th, 2012, 11:50 am
(quote not shown) (quote not shown) (quote not shown)It is inherent in Science itself that it will face and welcome failure, the more the better, which mean there will be continual improvement to scientific knowledge. Google 'scientific failures' and you will get an idea of where science had failed....
April 10th, 2012, 9:07 am
You put it in a very excellent way Xris, a way much better than I can ever do with my primitive lingual skills.Xris wrote:It is unscientific to impose an unproven god onto the subject. You approach it from a point of dogmatic certainty but will ignore any scientific evidence as irrelevant if it opposes your core beliefs. You either accept science and the proof of evolution or you start a thread in the religous forum. We might find it insulting for you to ignore any well proven scientific fact that counters your fundamentalist beliefs. You do not believe we originated from apes even though the overwhelming scientific community never doubts this absolute fact. You are not intent in finding the truth only securing some kind of credence to the biblical account of creation. There are scientists who are also Christians and they manage to believe in both evolution and creation but you are not one of them Fanman. The truth will set you free.
Thanks for clarifying what I could not.
April 10th, 2012, 8:18 am
(quote not shown)What do you imagine the PhD title of those scientists is indicating? Doctor of Phonics? :mrgreen: Philosophy is the art of asking questions that come naturally to children, using methods that come naturally to lawyers'. The scientist worth a damn that avoids philosophy is lucky. You...
April 10th, 2012, 7:28 am
(quote not shown)Science 99.9999% right vs Philosophy 0.00001% right. Phhht. Prove it. Ur sitting at scientific instruments, mouse, keyboards, screen, computer ..etc, your cell phone, GPS, the metallugy use for creating your products. Could philosophers who are helplessly bound asking silly selfexpl...
April 10th, 2012, 6:18 am
Science 99.9999% right vs Philosophy 0.00001% right.Spectrum wrote:Are you aware that scientific truths are merely conjecturals (Popper), albeit polished conjecturals awaiting further polishing and refinements. Even it is very useful, there are a lot of limitations in Science per-se. Science is done by fallible human beings. Philosophy studies these limitations and discusses how to move further and improve beyond the current limitation. Science cannot cure itself of its accepted limitations, but philosophy can assist.