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 29 matches
July 11th, 2012, 3:04 pm
(quote not shown) I wouldn't quite put it that way, Belinda. I would say that only finite things are real, therefore, if something has an infinite velocity, it cannot be real, because velocity is one of its properties. By changing the properties of that thing so that the velocity is finite, it can b...
July 11th, 2012, 2:57 pm
Joe Hubris wrote:
I agree with you, Steve.
I'm sorry, Scott, I referred to you as "Steve". Please forgive me.
July 11th, 2012, 1:03 am
(quote not shown) I agree with you, Steve. I might add that we cannot know what new technology might result from this work. It's only in hindsight that we can see the connections between a given experiment and a subsequent application of the knowledge that results.-- Updated July 11th, 2012, 1:19 am...
July 11th, 2012, 12:37 am
(quote not shown) Just to add to what Piercing Siren wrote: Happiness is the word we assign to the experience of that neurochemical process. As with most descriptions of entirely subjective experiences, it is poorly defined. emotions are not illusions. They are the product of an interplay between se...
June 5th, 2012, 3:07 am
(quote not shown) I'm not sure what "sane" or "insane" really mean. Also, as I said previously, for the purposes of this discussion, my comments refer only to acts, not people.-- Updated June 5th, 2012, 3:13 am to add the following --(quote not shown) Is one a subset of the other...
June 5th, 2012, 12:30 am
Of hand, I can say that there are significant public policy concerns regarding cloning and research into it. First, it may be impossible to "work out all the kinks" as was said via ethical research. Ultimately the goal of human cloning is to produce a human. How can we develop the technolo...
June 5th, 2012, 12:17 am
(quote not shown) So me refusing the previous statement also rejects this statement. I think you can take issue with my examples and still agree with the idea that the purpose of morality is part of the thing itself. I don't think this is a contentious position. I would say that just describing the ...
June 4th, 2012, 10:07 pm
minorwork wrote:Joe Hubris wrote: Manson is an interesting question. I have already said that disease is not evil, if he were authentically mentally ill, and the crimes he committed were a result of that, perhaps he wasn't evil.
There is no meaning to "authentic mental illness." Hand waving. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-80581 ... 846500132#
What I meant was "delusional" or operating under a delusion.
June 4th, 2012, 10:04 pm
(quote not shown) I might liken it to the demand for a product. If it is possible to build something, but no one will ever buy it, you could say the product--or the process by which it is made, exist. But isn't the demand for a thing part of the thing itself? In the same way, the purpose of a thing ...
June 4th, 2012, 9:10 pm
(quote not shown) A couple of thoughts. This lower limit for probability is part of the Intelligent Design argument presented by William Dembski in his explanatory filter. Dembski published a book The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities in 1998. If I recall correctly, hi...
June 4th, 2012, 8:09 pm
(quote not shown) If there is a "singular objective reality" then any "objective morality" would have to based on that. It would be a "Moreality", if you will. If you actually believe there is no free-will, however, then I don't think morality has any function. The purp...
June 4th, 2012, 7:55 pm
(quote not shown) I don't feel like I know enough about the science involved to properly address this. That said, it's fun to try :-) From my just-completed, very cursory glimpse at Wikipedia, it would appear that in the case of radioactive decay, it is always probablistic. I would say "no"...
June 4th, 2012, 6:51 pm
(quote not shown) I can't agree that an accidental death or disease are evil. I think you are confusing tragedy with evil. Natural events, like diseases, catastrophes and accidents without a human actor are morally neutral. The tsunami that struck japan was not evil, the disaster that stemmed from t...
June 1st, 2012, 3:26 pm
Not that my opinion carries any greater weight, but since I started the topic, I will share my ideas about the definitions. Firstly, for the purposes of this inquiry, I would limit myself to an action or a course of action when I describe something as evil. So, instead of saying some person is evil,...
May 28th, 2012, 3:32 am
(quote not shown) Scott, those are definitely two different things. In my comments I have tried very hard to present MWI and QIT merely as theories to explain our observations of quanta. They are competing with other theories. In no way do I believe, or am I saying that they actually reflect reality...
- Search found 29 matches • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2