Philosophie...

Page 10 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 30 Sep - 9:18

For this week,it's again the continuity of Atkinson,I'd began a new book recently but I'll be ready to talk of it later…
For now,a talk about the mind of Atkinson…
Man has but one mind,but he has many mental faculties,each faculty being capable of functioning along 2 different lines of mental effort. There are no distinct dividing lines separating the several functions of a faculty,but they shade into each other as do the colors of the spectrum.
An active effort of any faculty of the mind is the result of a direct impulse implanted at the time of the effort,a passive effort of any faculty of the mind is the result of either a preceding active effort of the same mind;an active effort of another along the lines of suggestion;thought vibrations from the mind of another;thought impulses from an ancestor,transmitted by the laws of heredity (including impulses transmitted from generation to generation from the time of the original vibratory impulse imparted by the primal cause,which impulses gradually unfold,and unsheath,when the proper state of evolutionary development is heached).
The active effort is new-born,fresh from the mint,whilst the passive effort is of less recent creation,and,in fact,is often the result of vibratory impulses imparted in ages long past. The active effort makes its own way,brushing aside impeding vines and kicking from its path the obstructing stones. The passive effort travels along the beaten path.
A thought-impulse,or motion-impulse,originally caused by an active effort of faculty,may become by continued repetition,or habit, strictly automatic,the impulse given it by the repeated active effort developing a strong momentum,which carries it on,along passive lines,util stopped by another active effort or its direction changed by the same cause.
On the other hand,thought-impulses,or motion-impulses,continued along passive lines may be terminated or corrected by an active effort. The active function creates,changes or destroys. The passive function carries on the work given it by the active function and obeys orders and suggestions.
The active function produces the thought-habit,or motion-habit,and imparts to it the vibrations which carry it on along the passive lines thereafter. The active function also has the power to send forth vibrations which neutralize the momentum of the thought-habit,or motion-habit;it's also is able to lauch a new thought-habit,or motion-habit,with stronger vibrations,which overcomes and absorbs the first thought,or motion,and substitutes the new one.

There's in Nature an instinctive tendency of living organisms to perform certain actions,the tendency of an organized body to seek that which satisfies the wants of its organism.This tendency is sometimes called appetency. It's really a passive mental impulse,originating with the impetus imparted by the primal cause,and transmitted along the lines of evolutionary development,gaining strength and power as it progresses.The impulse of the primal cause is assisted by the powerful upward attraction exerted by the absolute.
In plant life this tendency is plainly discernible,ranging from the lesser exhibitions in the lower types to the greater in the higher types. It's that which's generally spoken of as the « life force » in plants. It's,however,a manifestation of rudimentary mentation,functioning along the lines of passive effort. In some of the higher forms of plant life there appears a faint color of independent « life action », a faint indication of choice of volition. Writers on plant life relate many remarkable instances of this phenomenon. It's, undoubtedly,an exhibition of rudimentary active mentation. In the lower animal kingdom a very high degree of passive mental effort is found. Ad varying in degree in the several families and species,a considerable amount of active mentation is apparent. The lower animal undoubtedly possesses reason only in a lesson degree than man,and,in fact,the display of vilitional mentation exhibited by an intelligent animal is often nrearly as high as that shown by the lower types of man or by a young child.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Tue 6 Oct - 10:41

For this week,it will be again William W.Atkinson. It's 2 different parts very interesting for me…
Among the lower animals and the lower types of men Active mentation is largely confined to the grosser faculties,the more material plane;the higher mental faculties working along the instinctive,automatic lines of the passive function.
As the lower forms of life progressed in the evolutionary scale,they developed new faculties, which were latent within them. These faculties always manifested in the form of rudimentary passive functioning,and afterwards worked-up,through higher passive forms,until the active functions were brought into play. The evolutionary process still continues,the invariable tendency being toward the goal of highly developed active mentation. This evolutionary progress is caused by the vibratory impulse imparted by the primal cause,aided by the uplifting attraction of the absolute.
This law of evolution is still in progress,and man is beginning to develop new powers of mind,which,of course,are first manifesting themselves along the lines of passive effort. Some men have developed these new faculties to a considerable degree,and it's possible that before long man will be able to exercise them along the line of their active functions. In fact,this power has already been attained by a few. This is the secret of the Oriental occultists,and of some of their Occidental bethren. The amenability of the mind to the will can be increased by properly directed practice.
That which we are in the habit of referring to as the « strengthening of the will » is in reality the training of the mind to recognize and absorb the power within. The will is strong enough;it doesn't need strengthening,but the mind needs to be trained to receive and act upon the suggestions of the will.
The will is the outward manifestation of the I am. The will current is flowing in full strength along the spiritual wires; but you must learn how to raise the trolley-pole to touch it before the mental car will move. This is a somewhat different idea from that which you have on the subject of will power,but it's correct, as you'll demonstrate to your own satisfaction if you'll follow up the subject by experiments along the proper lines.
The attraction of the absolute is drawing man upward,and the vibratory force of the primal impulse hasn't yet exhausted itself. The time of evolutionary development has come when man can help himself . The man who understands the law can accomplish wonders by means of the development of the powers of the mind;whilst the man who turns his back upon the truth will suffer from his lack of knowledge of the law.

Thinking and knowledge:the approaches to thinking and intelligence discussed so far assume that there's such a thing as general thinking and creative abilities which people can apply across a whole range of problems,regardless of what skills a particular task requires;in other words,that intelligent thinking is « content free ». As you probably know,IQ tests are specifically designed to be as « content free » as possible. Any tests that require specific knowledge are suspected of being unfair. The criticism of vocabulary tests,for instance,is that they depend on a person's education rather than being a measure of natural « brainpower ».
This laudable obsession with devising knowledge-free culture-fair tests has propagated the belief that there is such a thing as « pure intelligence ».
Most psychological theories have been geared to discovering mental processes common to all human thinking. Rather than looking at the reasons why some individuals are better at doing certain problems than others,the aim is to illuminate general problem-solving strategies. A further requirement of both IQ tests and psychological experiments is that the people being investigated are presumed to be naive,coming to a task with no prior experience. In the interests of measuring pure intelligence,practice and hints on how to do IQ tests are frowned on as giving children unfair advantages.To study the general characteristics of human problem-solving,it's considered essential for the people used as subjects in psychological experiments to be beginners.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 15 Oct - 11:40

Sorry if I'm late this week,many events happened in the same time and I didn't had time for this. I'll be very short for this week,but it's a transition between 2 points of view Atkinson vs Sagan.
1)the law of the new thought/W.W.Atkinson
2)The burden of skepticism/Carl Sagan
My friend has been beated and strangled and raped yesterday,it's the reason of my retardation.
1)The law of attraction:This law difficult to understand,thought attracts not only persons but things,exerts a control over circumstances.
The Oneness of all affords a solution to the problem. The atom attracts that which's needed for its development. The power of desire,how the law operates in some circumstances, the law operating through men,illustrations of the wonderful workings of the law,your thoughts place you in connection with the outer world and its forces.
Starting the forces into operation,the road to success,swept on irresistible forces,faith and recognition of the law,rewarded by immediate movement. One gets very much what he looks for,the law is either your master or your servant.
Mind building:Advanced man has the power of consciously building his mind,doing the building yourself instead of letting others do it. The subconscious warehouse,moving along the lines of least resistance, taking mental stock and discarding worthless material. Wortless mental bric-a-brac,man not a worn of the dust,man destiny great and glorious Man's mind just what he makes it. Training and developing the mind,how to acquire desired mental traits,moulding and shaping the mind according to the will. We are no longer servants of our minds,mental freedom. The mind an instrument to be used by the real self,auto-suggestions and affirmations. The doctrine of « I can and I will »,what kind of mental material are you using?
2)Skepticism is dangerous. That 's exactly its fuction, in my view. It's the business of skpeticism to be dangerous.And that's why there's a great reluctance to teach it in the schools. That's why you don't find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand,how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don't have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nomially in change,especially in a democracy?
I think this is a useful moment to reflect on the sort of rational trouble that could have been avoided were skepticism more generally available in American society. The Iran/Nicaragua fiasco is so obvious an example I'll not take advantage of our poor,beleaguered president (Reagan) by spelling it out. The administration's resistance to a comprehensive test ban treaty and its continuing passion for blowing up nuclear weapons,one of the major drivers of the nuclear arms race, under the pretense of making us « safe » is another such issue. So is Star Wars. The habits of skeptical thought CSICOP encourages have relevance for matters of the greatest importance to the nation. There's enough nonsense promulgated by both political parties that the habit of evenhanded skepticism should be declared a national goal,essential for our survival. I want to say a little more about the burden of skepticism. You can get into an habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as dearly as you do. This is a potential social danger present in an organization like CSICOR. We have to guard carefully against it. It seems to me what's called for is an exquisite balance between 2 conflicting needs:the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 21 Oct - 10:41

Hi everybody! For this week,I'll talk about aliens and UFOs but by the sayings of a great scientist,Sagan… Believe it or not,he believed in this… It's him here in the continuity of last week…
It sometimes happens that ideas that are accepted by everybody turn out to be wrong,or at least partially wrong,or at least superseded by ideas of greater generality. And, while there are of course some personal losses,emotional bonds to the idea that you yourself played a rôle inventing,nevertheless the collective ethic is that every time such an idea is overthrown and replaced by something better the enterprise of science has bemefited. In science it often happens that scientists say, « You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken, » and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that has happened in politics or religion. It's very rare that a senator,say,replies, « that's a good argument. I'll now change my political affiliation ».
I would like to say a few things about the stimulating sessions on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and on animal langage at our conference. In the history of science there's an instructive procession for major intellectual battles that turn out, all of them,to be about how central human beings are. We could call them battles about the anti-Copernican conceit.

But the moment we find extraterrestrial intelligence that last bit of conceit is gone. I think some of the resistance to the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence is due to the anti-copernican conceit. Likewise,without taking sides in the debate on whether other animals,higher primates,especially great apes,are intelligent or have langage, that's clearly,on an emotional level,the same issue.
If we define humans as creatures who have langage and no one else has langage,at least we are unique in that regard. But if it turns out that all those dirty,repugnant,laughable chimpanzees can also,with Ameslan or otherwise,communicate ideas,then what's left that special about us? Propelling emotional predispositions on these issues are present,often unconsciously, in scientific debates. It's important to realize that scientific debates, can be awash with emotion, for these among many different reasons.
Now,let's take a closer look at the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence. How's this different from pseudoscience? Let me give a couple of real cases. In the early sixties,the Soviets held a press conference in Moscow in which they announced that a distant radio source,called CTA-102,was varying sinusoidally,like a sine wave,with a period of about 100 days. Why did they call a press conference to announce that a distant radio source was varying?Because they thought it was an extraterrestrial civilization of immense powers. That's worth calling a press conference for. This was before even the word « quasar » existed. Today we know that CTA-102 is a quasar. We don't know very well what quasars are : and there's more than one mutually exclusive explanation for them in the scientific literature. Nevertheless,few seriously consider that a quasar, like CTA-102,is more galaxy gindling extraterrestrial civilization,because there are a number of alternative explanations for their properties that are a number of alternative explanations of their properties that are more or less consistent with the physical laws we know without invoking alien life. The extraterrestrial hypothesis is a hypothesis of last report. Only if everything else fails do you reach for it. Second example:British scientists in 1967 found a nearby bright radio source that's fluctuating on a much shorter time scale, with a period constant to 10 significant figures. What was it? Their first thought was that it was something like a message being sent to us,or an interstellar navigational beacon for spacecraft that fly the spaces between the stars. They even gave it,among themselves at Cambridge University,the wry designation little green men. However, (they were wiser than the Soviets), they didn't call a press conference,and it soon became clear that what we had here was what's now called a « pulsar ». In fact it was the first pulsar,the Crab Nebula pulsar. Well,what's a pulsar? A pulsar is a star shrunk to the size of a city,held up as no other stars are, not by gas pressure,not by electron degeneracy,but by nuclear forces. It's in a certain sense an atomic nucleus the size of Pasadena. Now that,I maintain,is an idea at least as bizarre as an interstellar navigational beacon. The answer to what a pulsar is has to be something mighty strange. It isn't an extraterrestrial civilization,it's something else that opens our eyes and our mind and indicates possibilities in nature that we had never guessed at.
Sagan

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 29 Oct - 5:43

For this week,I'd chosed something more mystic or religious… It's what's happening in my life but in a metaphorical form. I don't talk a lot to my behavior of my thinking, but everyday,slowly,it takes form… and I like it…
Only one book:Miscellaneous Writings/H.Émilie Cady
Neither do I concern thee :
Hitherto few of us have had any idea of the destructive potency of condemnatory words or thoughts. Even among Truth students who know the power of every spoken word,and because they know it so much greater is that power,there's a widespread tendency to condemn the churches and all orthodox Christians,to criticize and speak disparagingly of students of different schools (as though there could be but one school of Christ),and even to discuss among themselves the failings of individuals who,in ways differing from their own,are earnestly seeking to find the Christ.
Let us stop and see what we are doing. Why should we condemn the churches? Didn't Jesus « continue to teach in the synagogues? » He didn't withdraw from the church and speak of it contemptuously. Nay, but remained in it,trying to show people wherein they were making mistakes,trying to lead them up to a higher view of God as their Father,and to stimulate them to more truly righteous lives.
He found hypocrisy in the churches. He didn't content himself with saying, « I'm holier than thou, » but he remained with them and taught them a more excellent way,that the inside of the platter must be made clean. Is the servant greater than his Lord? Shall not we,whom the Father has called into such marvelous light,rather help those sitting in darkness,even in the churches,than to utter one world of condemnation against them? A loyal son doesn't condemn his father and mother because in their day and generation, with their then limitations,they didn't grow up to his parent standard. We don't condemn the tallow candle or old stage coach because we have grown into a knowledge of electricity and steam power. We only see that out of the old grew the new,and that the old was necessary to the new. God,in his eternal purposes,is carrying evry living soul on toward a higher knowledge of the truth,a more perfect evolvement of himself through that soul.
If some are being pushed on into the light of truth and consequent liberty more rapidly than others,shall they turn and rend those who are walking more slowly but just as surely on toward the perfect light? Nay,nay;but,praising God for the marvelous revelation of himself withinour own souls,let us lift up rather than condemn any who are struggling toward the light. Let us become workers together with God,doers of the law,not judges.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 4 Nov - 8:13

For this week , I'd chosed:Motion Mountain/Christopher Schiller:it's appropriate to my life now…
Galilean Motion : The lightning striking the tree nearby violently disrupts our quiet forest walk and causes our hearts to suddenly beat faster. But the fire that started in the tree quickly fades away. The gentle wind moving the leaves around us helps to restore the calmness of the place. Nearby, the water in a small river follows its complicated way down the valley,reflecting on its surface the ever-changing shapes of the clouds.
Motion is everywhere:friendly and threatening, horrible and beautiful. It's fundamental to our human existence. We need motion for growing, for learning,for thinking and for enjoying life.
We use motion for walking through a forest,for listening to its noises and for talking about all this. Like all animals,we rely on motion to get food and to survive dangers. Plants by contrast cannot move (much); for their self-defence,they developed poisons. Examples of such plants are the stinging nettle,the tobacco plant, digitalis,belladonna and poppy;poisons include caffeine,nicotine,curare and many others.
Poisons such as these are at the basis of most medicines. Therefore,most medicines exist essentially because plants have no legs. Like all living beings,we need motion to reproduce,to breathe and to digest;like all objects,motion keeps us warm.
Motion is the most fundamental observation about nature at large. It turns out that everything which happens in the world is some type of motion. There are no exceptions. Motion is such a basic part of our observations that even the origin of the world is lost in the darkness of Indo-European linguistic history. The fascination of motion has always made it a favourite object of curiosity. But the fifth centure BCE in ancient Greece,its study had been given a name:physics.
Motion is also important to the human condition. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where do they go to? What's death? Where does life lead to? All these questions are about motion. The study of motion provides answers which are both deep and surprising.
Motion is mysterious. Though found everywhere,in the stars,in the tides,in our eyelids,neither the ancient thinkers nor myriads of others in the following 25 centuries have been able to shed light on the central mystery:What's motion? We'll discover that the standard reply,motion is the change of place in time,is inadequate. Just recently an answer has finally been found. This is the story of the way to reach it.
Motion is a part of human experience. If we imagine human experience as an island, then destiny,symbolized by the waves of the sea,carried us to its shore. Near the centre of the island an especially high mountain stands out.
From its top we can oversee the whole landscape and get an impression of the relationships between all human experiences, in particular between the various examples of motion. This is a guide to the top of what I have called Motion Mountain. The hike is one of the most beautiful adventures of the human mind. Clearly,the first question to ask is :
Does Motion exists?
To sharper the mind for the issue of motions existence. In both cases the figures seem to rotate. How can one make sure that real motion is different from these or other similar illusions?
Many scholars simply argued that motion doesn't exist at all. Their arguments deeply influenced the investigation of motion. For example, the Greek philosopher Parmenides (born 515 BC in Elea,a small town near Naples, in southern Italy) argued that since nothing comes from nothing,change cannot exist.
He underscored the permance of nature and thus consistenly maintained that all change and thus all motion is an illusion.
Heraclitus (540 to 480 BC) held the opposite view. He expressed it in his famous statement or « everything flows ». He saw change as the essence of nature,in contrast to Parmenides. These 2 equally famous opinions induced many scholars to investigate in more detail whether in nature there are conserved quantities or whether creation is possible. We'll uncover the answer later on;until then,you might ponder which option you prefer.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 11 Nov - 4:46

Hello everybody, I'm working hard on my new home soon, and I chosed something simple and interesting in continuity with last week in Motion Mountain.
How should we talk about motion?
Like any science, the approach of physics is twofold : we advance with precision and with curiosity. Precision makes meaningful communication possible,and curiosity makes it worthwhile. Whenever one talks about motion and aims for increased precision or for more detailed knowledge,one is engaged, whether knowingly or not, in the ascent of Motion Mountain. With every increase in the precision of description,one gains some height.
When you fill a bucket with a little water,it doesn't hang vertically,if you continue adding water, it starts to hang vertically at a certain moment. How much water is necessary? When you pull a thread from a reel in the way shown,the reel will move either forwards or backwards,depending on the angle at which you pull. What's the limiting angle between the 2 possibilities?
High precision means going into fine details. This method actually increases the pleasure of the adventure. The higher we get on Motion Mountain,the further we can see and the more our curiosity gets rewarded. The views offered are breathtaking,especially at the very top. The path we'll follow,one of the many possible ones,starts from the side of biology and directly enters the forest lying at the foot of the mountain.
Intense curiosity implies to go straight to the limits:understanding motion means to study the largest distances,the highest velocities,the smallest particles, the strongest forces and the strangest concepts.

With the accumulation of observations in the 19th and 20th centuries,even more restrictions on the study of motion were put into question. Extensive observations showed that all transformations and all growth phenomena,including behaviour change and evolution,are examples of transport as well. In other words, over 2000 years of studies have shown that the ancient classification of observations was useless:all change is transport.
In the middle of the 20th century this culminated in the confirmation of an even more specific idea already formulated in ancient Greece: every type of change is due to motion of particles.
It takes time and work to reach this conclusion,which appears only when one relentlessly pursues higher and higher precision in the description of nature. The first 2 parts of this adventure retrace the path to this result. (Do you agree with it?)
The last decade of the 20th century changed this view completely. The particle idea turns out to be wrong. This new result,already suggested by advanced quantum theory,is reached in the third part of our adventure through a combination of careful observation and deduction. But we still have some way to go before we reach there.

Several steps in the eye and in the brain are involved. Motion plays an essential part in them, as is best deduced from the flip movie shown in the lower left corners of these pages. Each image shows only a rectangle filled with a mathematically-random pattern. But when the pages are scanned,one discerns a shape moving against a fixed background. At any given instant,the shape cannot be distinguished from the background. At any given instant, the shape cannot be distinguished from the background; there's no visible object at any given instant of time. Nevertheless it's easy to perceive its motion. Perception experiments such as this one have been performed in many variations. Among others it was found that detecting such a window is nothing special; flies have the same ability,as do, in fact,all animals which have eyes. The flip movie in the lower left corner,like many similar experiments,shows 2 central connections. First, motion is perceived only if an object can be distinguished from a background or environment. Many motion illusions focus on this point. Second, motion is required to define both the object and the environment,and to distinguish them from each other. In fact, the concept of space is,among others, an abstraction of the idea of background.The background is extended;the moving entity is localized. Does this seem boring?
We call the set of localized aspects that remain invariant or permanent during motion,such as size,shape,colour etc., taken together, a (physical) object or a (physical) body. We'll tighten the definition shortly, since otherwise images would be objects as well. In other words,right from the start we experience motion as a relative process; it's perceived in relation and in opposition to the environment. The concept of object is therefore also a relative concept. But the basic conceptual distinction between localized, isolable objects and the extended environment isn't trivial or unimportant. First, it smells of a circular definition. This issue will keep us very busy later on. Second, we are so used to our ability of isolating local systems from the environment that we take it for granted. However, as we'll see in the third part of our walk, this distinction turns out to be logically and experimentally impossible! Our walk will lead us to discover the reason for this impossibility and its important consequences. Finally, apart from moving entities and the permanent background, we need a third concept.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 18 Nov - 12:43

For this week,I'd found very good definitions of 2 words, concepts, then I liked to share… It's again in Motion Mountain than I talked about, last week.
What's velocity? To physicists, not only car races are interesting, but any moving entity is. Therefore they first of all measure as many examples as possible.
Everyday life teaches us a lot about motion : objects can overtake each other, and they can move in different directions. We also observe that velocities can be added or changed smoothly. The precise list of these properties, is summarized by mathematicians with a special term; they say that velocities form a Euclidean vector space. For now we just note that in describing nature, mathematical concepts offer the most accurate vehicle.
When velocity is assumed to be an Euclidean vector, it's called Galilean velocity. Velocity is a profound concept. For example,velocity doesn't need space and time measurements to be defined first. Are you able to find a means to measure velocities without measuring space and time? If you cannot do so, consider this : whenever we measure a quantity we assume that everybody is able to do so, and that everybody will get the same result. In other words, we take measurement to be a comparison with a standard. We thus implicitly assume that such a standard exists, that an example of a « perfect » velocity can be found. Historically, the study of motion didn't investigate this question first, because for many centuries nobody could find such a standard velocity.

What's time?In their first years of life, children spend a lot of time throwing objects around. The term « object » is a Latin word meaning « that which has been thrown in front. » Developmental psychology has shown experimentally that from this very experience children extract the concepts of time and space. Adult physicists do the same when studying motion at university. When we throw a stone through the air, we can define a sequence of observations.
Our memory and our senses give us this ability. The sense of hearing registers the various sounds during the rise,the fall and the landing of the stone. Our eyes track the location of the stone from one point to the next. All observations have their place in a sequence, with some observations preceding them, some observations simultaneous to them, and still others succeeding them. We say that observations are perceived to happen at various instants and we call the sequence of all instants time.
An observation that's considered the smallest part of a sequence,not itself a sequence,is called an event. Events are central to the definition of time;in particular,starting or stopping a stopwatch are events. (But do events really exist? Keep this question in the back of your head as we move on).
Sequential phenomena have an additional property known as stretch, extension or duration. Duration expresses the idea that sequences take time. We say that a sequence takes time to express that other sequences can take place in parallel with it.
How exactly is the concept of time, including sequence and duration, deduced from observations? Many people have looked into this question : astronomers,physicists,watchmakers,psychologists and philosophers. All find that time is deduced by comparing motions. Children, beginning at a very young age, develop the concept of « time » from the comparison of motions in their surroundings. Grown-ups take as a standard the motion of the sun and call the resulting type of time local time. From the Moon they deduce a lunar calendar. If they take a particular village clock on a European island they call it the universal time coordinate (UTC), once known as « Greenwich mean time ». Astronomers use the movements of the stars and call the result ephemis time. An observer who uses his personal watch calls the reading his proper time; it's often used in the theory of relativity. Not every movement is a good standard for time.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 26 Nov - 5:15

For this week, It will be 2 parts in 2 books :
1)Motion Mountain/Christoph Schiller
2)Causation/Douglas Kutach
1)Does time flow? (in my opinion,yes,)
The expression « the flow of time » is often used to convey that in nature change follows after change,in a steady and continuous manner. But though the hards of a clock « flow », time itself doesn't. Time is a concept introduced soecially to describe the flow of events around us; it doesn't itself flow,it describes flow. Time doesn't advance. Time is neither linear nor cyclic. The idea that time flows is as hindering to understanding nature as is the idea that mirrors exchange right and left.
The misleading use the expression « flow of time », propagated first by some Greek thinkers and then again by Newton,continues.
Aristotle (384/322BC),careful to think logically,pointed out its misconception, and many did so after him. Nevertheless, expressions such as « time reversal », the « irreversibility of time », and the much-abused « time's arrow » are still common. Just read a popular science magazine chosen at random.
The fact is : time cannot be reversed, only motion can, or more precisely, only velocities of objects; time has no arrow,only motion has;it's not the flow of time that humans are unable to stop,but the motion of all the objects in nature. Incredibly, there are even books written by respected physicists which study different types of time's arrows and compare them to each other. Predictably, no tangible or new result is extracted. Time doesn't flow. In the same manner, collocquial expressions such as the start (or end) of time should be avoided. A motion expert translates them straight away into the start (or end) of motion.
It seems reasonable at first to say that the entire collection of masses (being on the scale at once) caused the breakage .
But what about other causes? In particular, can we ascertain whether each individual mass was a (partial) cause of the breakage? On the one hand, we can say that no individual mass made a significant difference.
If any one of the 70 had been omitted,the scale would still have broken. On the other hand,we know that all 70 together broke the scale and that they all weigh exactly the same. That suggests we should apply the principle that if some of them are responsible for the brakage, so are all the others. In that case, each mass is one of the causes of the scale breaking. Unlike the previous linear case, there's a potential problem here for the egalitarian conception of causation.
We have 2 lines of reasoning appealing to the equality of causes and drawing opposite conclusions. One says that because none of the individuals caused the breakage,none of them were causes. The other says that some of the single masses had to be causes of the breakage,so they were all causes. The problem is that attributing the status of « cause » or it isn't. The framework philosophers operate under doesn't allow us to identify the placement of each single mass as one-seventieth of a cause or any other fraction. One common response to such examples is to point out that some cases of causation involve overdeterminnation.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 2 Dec - 16:23

For this week, I chosed a part of Causation of Douglas Kutach,it's an example of laws of physics in the everyday life and how to use it. I'll pursue this article next week, It's a very good book… This concept explained here should be understand all around the world in my point of view.
Productive vs Difference-Making Causation :
It's important not to let the discussion spin out of control by becoming too abstract. Let us turn at once to a social scenario incorporating the non-linear causation we just discussed. The purpose of the following example is to illustrate 2 points. 1)In many cases we care about,causal responsibility shouldn't in general be distributed among multiple causes in terms of a fraction of responsibility.
2)We sometimes have significantly different conceptions of causation driving our judgments of causal responsibility. In particular,I want to point out that we sometimes think of a cause as somehow generating or producing its effect, and at other times we think of a cause as something that makes a difference as to whether or how its effect comes about.
It's not currently well known whether (and how) these 2 conceptions are compatible.
Once upon a time,there were 2 nearby islands. Paul was the lone inhabitant of one island, and he had a small boat for fishing. Vivian was the lone inhabitant of the other island,which hosted abundant stringy plants that she harvested for rope fiber. (it's a good representation of the genesis and the yin yang original).
By working alone, each collected enough food for his or her own survival, but just barely and with several periods of hunger. By cooperating,however, they could gather enough food to be healthy year-round and to preserve some leftlovers for insurance.
Vivian had already spent an enormous amount of time making a few large nets out of plant fiber. She haggled with Paul,who agreed to let her use his boat if she gave him half of the fish. She acceded and gathered heaps of fish from the deeper waters. Before handing any fish over,Vivian reconsidered the fairness of dividing the fish equally between her and Paul. Vivian suggested to Paul that it was not fair for him to take half of the fish because he didn't do any work ,he just let her use the boat. But Paul pointed out that without his boat,she wouldn't have have gotten the huge stock of fish.
Using his boat made all the difference between going hungry and having a huge stockpile. Vivian then noted that the same observation applied to her. Without the net,she couldn't have caught so many fish.
There are 2 conflicting arguments here concerning how to divide the cooperative surplus fairly. Vivian,we might say, was suggesting that the rights to the fish are earned by doing work and that the surplus should be distributed proportional to the amount of labor expended.
Paul was countering that they are both free agents and if they both agree to a deal,what's fair is to stick to the terms : « If I hold out until you agree to give me half the fish, » Paul continues, « and you it's fair for me to get half. So long as everyone consents, there's nothing more to discuss. »
I first learned about this problem of cooperative surplus while studying political philosophy. Vivian's line of argument fits in the tradition of John Locke, who argued that a person has a right to private property if he mixes in his personal labor. Paul's line of argument follows the classic libertarian tradition by saying, «  what everyone freely agrees to is fair. »
I later realized that debates about fairness (and other ethical issues) share important features with debates about causation. The main similarity I want to point out is the nonlinear causal relationship between the activities of Vivian and Paul and the total resulting amount of fish.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 9 Dec - 10:19

For this week, I'd chosed 2 parts of 2 different books and make 1 lesson of history-psychology…
The first is an example of the second.
1)The Bible Unearthed/Israel Finklestein
2)Cognition and multi-agent interaction from cognitive modeling to social simulation/Ron Sun

1)Archeology and the Bible : The story of how and why the Bible was written,and how it fits into the extraordinary history of the people of Israel,is closely linked to a fascinating tale of modern discovery. The search has centered on a tiny land,hemmed in on 2 sides by desert and on one side by the Mediterranean, that has,over the millennia,been plagued by recurrent drought and almost continual warfare. Its cities and population were minuscule in comparison to those of the neighboring empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Likewise, its material culture was poor in comparison to the splendor and extravagance of theirs. And yet this land was the birthplace of a literary master-piece that has exerted an unparalleled impact on world civilization as both sacred scripture and history.
More than 200 years of detailed study of the Hebrew text of the Bible and ever more wide-ranging exploration in all the lands between the Nile and the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers have enabled us to begin to understand when, why, and how the Bible came to be. Detailed analysis of the langage and distinctive literary genres of the Bible has led scholars to identify oral and written sources on which the present biblical text was based. At the same time,archeology has produced a stunning,almost encyclopedic knowledge of the material conditions,languages,societies, and historical developments of the centuries during which the traditions of ancient Israel gradually crystallized, spanning roughly 600 years, from about 1000 to 400 BCE. Most important of all, the textual insights and the archaeological evidence have combined to help us to distinguish between the power and poetry of biblical saga and the more down-to-earth events and processes of ancient Near Eastern history.
2)A multi-agent system (society of agents) is a community of autonomous entities each of which perceives,decides,and acts on its own interest,but may also cooperate with others to achieve common goals and objectives. How to achieve meaningful coordination among agents in general,however,is a difficult issue and, to a very large extent, a mystery thus far (despite the fact that it has been extensively tackled).
Over the years,the notions of agent and agency have occupied a major rôle in defining research in social and behavioral sciences, including sociology,philosophy,economics, psychology, and many other fields.
The notion of agent has also invaded computer science and engineering (in Internet computing and in robotics research in particular). Computational models of agents have been developed in both artificial intelligence and cognitive science. In AI,they appear under the rubric of « intelligent agents ».
In cognitive science,they are often known as « cognitive architectures », that's,the essential structure and process of a (broadly-scoped) domain generic computational cognitive model. They are often used for broad,cross-domain analysis of research provide useful paradigms for addressing some fundamental questions concerning human nature.
In particular, although traditionally the main focus of research in cognitive science has been on specific components of cognition ( perception,memory,learning, or langage), relatively recent developments in computational modeling through cognitive architectures provide new avenues for precisely specifying a range of complex cognitive processes together in tangible ways. Computational cognitive modeling,especially with cognitive architectures, has become an essential area of research on cognition. Computational cognitive modeling has been gradually integrated into larger communities of social and behavioral sciences. A particularly important aspect of this integration is that by now, mainstream experimental and theoretical psychology journals have started publishing computational modeling papers. This fact reflects the growing interest in computational cognitive part of traditional psychological communities.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 17 Dec - 7:09

For this week,it's very simple, it's all in the same book about sociology… It's just a good representation of the reality.
Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction from cognitive modeling to social simulation/Ron Sun.
It's not only limits the realism,and hence applicability of social simulations,but also precludes any possibility of resolving the theoretical question of the micro-macro link. At the same time, reseachers in cognitive science,although studying individual cognition in depth, have paid relatively little attention to social phenomena (with some notable exceptions of course). The separation of the 2 fields can be seen 1) in the different journals dedicated to the 2 different fields, 2) in the different conferences for these 2 different fields, 3) in the different professionnal organizations, as well as 4) in the scant overlap of authors in these 2 fields. Moreover, most of the commonly available social simulation tools embody very simplistic agent models,not even remotely comparable to what has been developed within the field of cognitive architectures. We believe that investigation,modeling, and simulation of social phenomena. (Whether using multi-agent systems or not) needs cognitive science,because we have reasons to believe that such endeavors need a better understanding, and better models, of individual cognition, only on the basis of which it can develop better models of aggregate processes through multi-agent interaction.

Prolegomena to integrating cognitive modeling and social simulation :
First of all, there's the sociological level, which includes collective behaviors of agents (Durkheim,1895),interagent processes, sociocultural processes,social structures and organizations,as well as interactions between agents and their (physical and sociocultural) environments. Although studied extensively by sociology, anthropology,political science,and economics, this level has traditionally been very much ignored in cognitive science. Only recently, cognitive science,as a whole, has come to grisps with the fact that cognition is, at least in part, a sociocultural process. To ignore sociocultural processes is to ignore a major underlying determinant of individual cognition. The lack of understanding of sociological processes may result in the lack of understanding of some major structure s in, and constraints on,cognition.
The next level is the psychological level, which covers individual experiences, individual behaviors, individual performance, as well as beliefs, concepts, and skills employed by individual agents. In relation to the sociological level, the relationship of individual beliefs,concepts, and skills with those of the society and the culture, may be investigated (in inter-related and mutually influential ways). At this level, we may examine human behavioral data,compared with models and insights from the sociological level and details from the lower levels.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 24 Dec - 12:28

Merry Christmas everyone! For this week, it will be very simple and useful during the christmas time… It's the continuity of:Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction from cognitive modeling to social simulation/Ron Sun.
We may also specify some essential computational processes of each component as well as essential connections among components. Ideas and data from the psycho-logical level,that's,the psychological constraints from above,which bear significantly on the division of components and their possible implementations, are among the most important considerations.
This level may also incorporate biological/physiological facts regarding plausible divisions and their implementations;that's, it can incorporate ideas from the next level down, the physiological level, which offers the biological constraints. This level results in mechanisms, though they are computational and thus somewhat abstract compared with physiological level details. The importance of this level has been argued for, for example, in Sun and Gray and Altmann.
Although this level is essentially in terms of intra-agent processes, computational models developed therein may be used to capture processes at higher levels,including interaction at a sociological level whereby multiple individuals are involved.

For another example, the psychological and the social level may also be crossed (and may even be integrated) in many ways, in order to generate new insights into social phenomena on the basis of cognitive processes and,conversely, to generate insights into cognitive phenomena on the basis of sociocultural processes. In particular,in the field of cognitive work analysis,in order to facilitate the design of physical work environments and group structures that improve work performance, work activities are analyzed in terms of the cognitive processes involved (such as memory requirement, visual perception,etc) to shed light on possible areas of improvement. In all of these cases, the ability to shift freely between levels, or to understand the mapping between levels,is a critical part of scientific work.

The environment may or may not be hospitable to the needs of an agent. Therefore, effort is often required of an agent to fulfill even the most basic needs. Evolutionarily speaking,it seems evident that thinking (cognition) is there mostly to serve the purpose of fulfilling the needs of agents. That's, thinking (cognition) is evolved mostly to find ways of satisfying such needs ( and their derived goals). It involves embodied reactions on the one end and deliberative conceptual thinking on the other. Both normally operate in an existentially pertinent manner. Thinking (cognition) must be teleologically consistent with an agent's innate needs and other motivators. The consistency between the teleological function of thinking (cognition) and the teleological function of innate needs and other motivators may result from the evolutionary process that created both. In turn, both are there to serve the purpose of « competing » in natural selection. To satisfy needs, one has to deal with environments (including one's own embodiment) and their regularities and structures, and to exploit such regularities and structures,and to exploit on an individual or collective basis. In a sense,thinking (cognition) bridges the needs of an agent and the environments,physical or social,in which the agent finds itself.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 31 Dec - 8:34

Happy New Year everyone! For this week it's again the continuity of last week in some other parts.
Cognition and Multi-Agent interaction from cognitive modeling to social simulation/Ron Sun.
Their « model social agents » possess a variety of knowledge and processing capabilities. Their knowledge may be divided into layers of cultural-historical situations, social goal situations, social structural situations, multiple agent situations and nonsocial task situations,as termed by Carley and Newell (1994).Whether one agrees cognition and sociality are intimately tied together remains valid. On the other hand,needs and their concomitant thinking (cognition) lead to action. Actions do change environments (existent structures) in a variety of possible ways. Changes may be made to physical environments,for example, in the case of building a shack because of the need to avoid rain.
Changes may also be made to social environments, for example, in the case of creating a social institution to ensure property rights. The changed structures then, in turn,affect thinking and motivation.
Thus,the 3 factors, motivation,thinking, and existent structures, dynamically interact with one another, through human actions. Moreover, due to their close,dynamic interactions, they are inextricably tied together and hence we may view them as integral parts of a thinking motivation structure triad. They way in which these 3 major factors interact can evidently be highly complex.

Now that we examined issues surrounding cognition,let us see how we may move up from there. That's , let us see how we may « mix » levels by going from the psychological level to a higher level, the sociological level. Here, we encounter immediately a key issue at the intersection of the psychological and the sociological level : that's, how do the intention and action of individual agents serve social functions? In particular, how do self-interested agents,by virtue of their self-interest, help with the overall welfare of the society? Here, we encounter the baffling issue of the micro-macro link, for example, of agents to serve a social function.
Adam Smith (1976) put it this way : « He generally,indeed,neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he's promoting it… He intends only his own gain, and he's led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention. »
Or, as Castelfranchi (2001) put it : « The real problem is modeling how we play our social roles,while being unaware of the functional effects of our actions, not only with our routine actions but even when doing something deliberately for our own subjective motives. »
What constitutes that « invisible hand »? This paradox has been troubling sociologists and economists for decades.

As alluded to before ,there have been some reasons to believe that the process of evolution . Note that when we talk about evolution, we must talk about both evolution of cognition and evolution of sociocultural processes. We might view them either as constituting elements of one process or as separate processes.
How do we test and validate such a hypothesis? To understand the evolution of these 2 kinds of processes and their interaction,large-scale evolutionary simulation (through computational modeling) may be a necessity. Such an effort requires computational modeling because of its complexity. Beyond much simplified models of evolution, we would need more cognitively realistic computational simulations models of evolution, models that take into account realistic cognitive processes and constraints, as well as their changes,phylogenetic and ontogenetic, in addition to capturing social processes. It's not just social simulation,or just social simulation with cognitive modeling,it's both plus evolutionary processes on top of them.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 7 Jan - 10:48

Hello everyone,for this week, I chosed another interesting book :
Critical thinking/Brooke Noël Moore,Richard Parker
What Arguments aren't :
We hope you've noticed that,when we use the word « argument », we aren't talking about 2 people having a feud or fuss about something. That use of the word has nothing much to do with critical thinking,although many a heated exchange could use some. Remember,arguments,in our sense,don't even need 2 people;we make arguments for our own use all the time.
Speaking of what arguments aren't,it's important to realize that not everything that might look like an argument is one. The following is nothing more than a list of facts :
Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year. More people have learned how easy it's to get hold of another's social security numbers, bank account numbers, and such. The local police department reminds everyone to keep close watch on who has access to such information.
Although they are related by being about the same subject ,none of these claims is offered as a reason for believing another,and thus there's no argument here.
But the following passage is different. See if you can spot why there's an argument present :
The number of people who have learned how to steal identities has doubled in the last year. So,you are now more likely to become a victim of identity theft than you were a year ago. Here, the first claim offers support for, a reason for believing,the second claim; we now have an argument. It's because the identity thieves are more numerous that one should think becoming a victim is more likely.
Arguments are often accompanied by a lot of extraneous stuff, rhetorical flourishes,asides, tangents, jokes. You'll often have to sort through all these things to find an actual argument. We'll try to give you some help in this, but practice and your own vigilance will stand you in good stead. Arguments can also be difficult to identify because they are easily confused with 2 other kinds of things:explanations and attempts to persuade.

2 kinds of good arguments : Logicians recognize 2 kinds of good arguments:A good « deductive » argument and a good « inductive » argument. Before we explain these arguments, we should point out that the distinction between the 2 is second nature to instructors of critical thinking, and it's easy for them (and for us) to sometimes forget that it's new to many people. In addition, within the past few pages we have already brought up several new ideas, including « critical thinking »,claim, argument,premise,conclusion,issue,and more. This is quite a load, so don't worry if you don't understand the distinction immediately.
Deductive Arguments : The first type of good argument, a good deductive argument, is said to be « valid », which means it isn't possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Take this argument about one of our former students :
Premise:Josh Fulsher lives in Alaska.
Conclusion:Therefore,Josh Fulsher lives in the US.
This is a valid argument because it's not possible for Josh Fulsher to live in Alaska and not live in the US.
One more example :
Premise:Josh Fulsher is taller than his wife,and his wife is taller than his son.
Conclusion:Therefore,Josh Fulsher is taller than his son.
This,too, is a valid argument,because it isn't possible for that premise to be true and the conclusion to be false. To put all this differently,the premises of a good deductive argument, assuming they are true,prove or demonstrate the conclusion.
Inductive Arguments :
The premises of the other type of good argument, a good inductive argument, don't prove or demonstrate the conclusion. They support it. This means that, assuming they are true,they raise the probability that the conclusion is true.
Premise:Fulsher lives in Alaska.
Conclusion:Therefore,he uses mosquito repellent.
Fulsher's living in Alaska makes it more probable that Fulsher uses mosquito repellent and :
Premise:People who live in Butte City already spend a lot of time in the sun.
Conclusion : Therefore, a tanning salon won't do well there.
The premise of this argument (assuming it's true) raises the probability that the conclusion is true; thus it supports the conclusion. The more support the premises of an argument provide for a conclusion, the stronger the argument is said to be.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 13 Jan - 13:37

For this week, it's very simple,it's the continuity of the lat one's. In the book of Critical Thinking.
Knowledge:The concept of knowledge is another that philosophers have contested at a deep,theoretical level despite a general agreement that, in everyday life, we understand well enough what we mean when we say we know something.
Ordinarily,you are entitled to say you know that the claim « There's a book on the table » is true provided that 1)you believe there's a book on the table,2) you have justification for this belief in the form of an argument beyond a reasonable doubt that there's a book on the table, 3) you have no reason to suspect that you are mistaken, such as that you haven't slept for several nights or have recently taken a large dose of some hallucinogenic drug.
There are those who are complete skeptics regarding knowledge; they say it's impossible to know anything. But one wonders how they know that. Presumably, they had have to say they're just guessing. Ideally, we would always make claims to knowledge in accordance with the criteria in the previous paragraph. We also recommend as a motto the famous remark of the 19th century mathematician W.K.Clifford : « It's wrong always,everywhere, and for everyone,to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
Value Judgments:One of your authors returned from a concert by Diego Torres, a guitarist from Spain.
« It was fantastic », he told his friends; « It was the best thing I've seen all year. » Each of these remarks is a value judgment, a term for a claim that expresses an evaluation of something.
« It was fantastic » and « It was the best concert of the year » both express a positive evaluation of the event. « LSU has a great football program » claims a favorable evaluation of that program. « We should open a tanning salon in Butte City » is favorable (although mistaken!) evaluation of our starting such a business in Butte City. « Jon Stewart would make a better president than any of the present candidates. Generally speaking,value judgments are the claims we use to say that something is good or bad in some way,or better or worse.
There are different varieties of value judgments because we evaluate things on different kinds of scales. One scale we use is the ugly-beautiful scale.

For now, we need to deal with only one common misconception regarding value judgments. Many beginning critical thinking student's make the mistake of thinking that people are free to accept whatever value judgment they please and that all value judgments are equally plausible. These students are thus not inclined to subject any value judgment to critical examination,deciding instead that such judgments are merely personal opinions and that one is as good as another. In many cases,this is simply a cop-out, a way of getting off the hook. Because one doesn't have the will or the skills to challenge or defend a value judgment, one can take the easy way out and just say that value judgments can't be challenged or defended because they're just unsubstantiated opinions anyway.

Deductive Arguments:The premise (or premises) of a good deductive argument, if true,proves or demonstrates (these being the same thing) its conclusion. However, there's more to this than meets the eye, and we must begin with the fundamental concept of deductive logic,validity. An argument is said to be valid if it isn't possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. This may sound complicated, but it really isn't.

Inductive Arguments : Again, the premise of a good deductive argument,if time,proves the conclusion. This brings us to the second kind of argument,the inductive arguments don't prove their conclusions;they support them.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 20 Jan - 11:06

For the last week on this book for a while of Critical Thinking of Ron Sun,I'd chosed 2 parts very interesting… useful to understand in the everyday life.
Distinguishing Arguments from Window Dressing :
It's not always easy to isolate the argument in a speech or a written piece. Often, speakers and writers think that because their main points are more or less clear to them, they'll be equally apparent to listeners and readers. But it doesn't always work that way. If you have trouble identifying a conclusion in what you hear or read, it could be the passage isn't an argument at all. Make sure the passage in question isn't a report, a description, an explanation, or something else altogether, rather than an argument. The key here is determining whether the speaker or writer is offering reasons intended to support or demonstrate one or more claims.
The problem could also be that the conclusion is left unstated. Sometimes it helps simply to put the argument aside and ask yourself, « what's this person trying to prove? » In any case, the first and essential step in understanding an argument is to spot the conclusion. If you are having difficulty identifying the premises, consider the possibility that you have before you a case of rhetoric. (You can't find premises in a piece of pure rhetoric because there are no premises).

But we are monitoring the data in such a manner that we'll be able to update people on changes that are important. This tells us nothing about the weather, of course, and wasn't intended to. Many times, though, we run across similarly complicated examples of speech or writing that do seem to be intended to inform us. For example,Allan Bloom,the famous American educator who authored The Closing of the American Mind, which was read (or at least purchased) by millions, wrote in that book :
« If openness means to « go with the flow », it's necessarily an accomodation to the present. That present is so closed to doubt about so many things impeding the progress of its principles that unqualified openness to it would mean forgetting the despised alternative to it, knowledge of which makes us aware of what is doubtful in it. »
Is this true?Well,that's really hard to say. The problem is you don't know exactly what Professor Bloom is asserting in this passage.
Any number of problems may make a statement unclear. Not infrequently,people just don't say what they mean. Consider this statement made by George W.Bush : « You know when you give a man more money in his pocket, in this case, a woman more money in her pocket to expand a business,it, they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building somebody has got to come and build the building. And when the building expanded it prevented additional opportunities for people to work. »
We think he meant « presented » rather than « prevented »,but even then, the point can surely be made more clearly. Here's an example from former Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien, when asked in Parliament about old versus new money in the healthcare program :
« They say that the money we had promised 3 years ago to be new money this year isn't new money. We haven't paid it yet and it's old money versus new money. For me new money is new money if paying 5$ or 10$,it's the same money. »
We have no clue what he had in mind. One of your authors noticed this as a tease on the front page of a newspaper « 49ers are upset. » This probably means that somebody who wasn't supposed to beat the San Francisco football team did manage to beat them. On the other hand, it could mean that the team is dismayed about something.
Although obscurity can issue from various causes,4 sources of confusion stand out as paramount:excessive vagueness,ambiguity,excessive generality,and undefined terms. In this chapter, we shall consider vagueness,ambiguity,and generality in some detail and then talk about definitions.
Also,from time to time situations arise in which we need to think critically about what we write,especially when we are trying to produce an argumentative essay. In this type of writing enterprise,one takes a position on an issue and supports it with argument. A good argumentative essay usually consists of 4 parts : a statement of the issue, a statement of one's position on that issue, arguments that support one's position, and rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions. Obviously,an argumentative essay is weakened by statements that are obscure, and what we say in this chapter has direct application to writing clear argumentative essays. We shall return to this subject after we discuss vaguness, ambibuity, generality, and definitions.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 28 Jan - 7:39

For this week,I chosed a last definition in Critical Thinking (Ron Sun), and I'd mixed it with a part of Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management/David G.Schwartz about the healthcare system.
Because next week, I want to talk about « The social logic » where I live.
1)Ambiguity:A word,phrase,or sentence is said to be ambiguous when it has more than one meaning. Does « Paul cashed a check » mean that Paul gave somebody cash, or that somebody gave cash to him? It could mean either. « Jessica is renting her house » could mean that she's renting it to someone or from someone. Jennifer gets up from her desk on Friday afternoon and says, « My work here is finished. » She might mean that she has finished the account she was working on, or that she's fed up with her job and is leaving the company. If you look online, you can find several collections of amusing headlines that are funny because of their ambiguity : « Kids make nutritious snacks, » for example, or « Miners refuse to work after death. »
Most of the time the interpretation that a speaker or writer intends for a claim is obvious, as in the case of there headlines. But ambiguity can have consequences beyond making us smile. Take a look at the box « Meet the Ambiguity. » The question Russert asks is ambiguous, although you might not notice it at first. It could be a question about the cause, the explanation for one's not supporting gay marriage, or it might be about his reasons,his argument, for not supporting it. Presidential candidate Edwards took advantage of the ambiguity to duck the question Russert really wanted him to answer, which was the second version.
The way Edwards was brought up is something he's not responsible for and which he doesn't have to defend. On the other hand if he were asked to give arguments for his side of the issue, he could then be asked to defend those arguments.
In discussions, of gay rights, we've seen an ambiguity in the term « rights » that often stymies rational debate. The issue is whether laws should be passed to prevent discrimination against gays in housing, in the workplace , and so forth.
One side claims that such laws would themselves be discriminatory because they would specifically grant to gay people rights that aren't specifically guaranteed to others, they would be « special » rights. The other side claims that the laws are only to guarantee for gays the right to be treated the same as others under the law. When the 2 sides fail to sort out just what they mean by their key terms, the result is at best a great waste of breath and at worst angry misunderstanding.

2)Advanced information technologies can give healthcare providers the opportunity to reduce overall healthcare expenses by lowering the costs of completing administrative and clinical transactions. Nevertheless, in comparison to other industry has been slow to embrace e-business solutions and other advanced information technologies.
The same study revealed that the healthcare industry spends substantially more or overhead and computer facility maintenance than other industry sectors. In 1997, for instance,the healthcare industry alloted 12% of its budget to maintain existing infrastructure; 6% more than the industry norm. The high level of investment in this area by healthcare organizations indicates that many providers operate with the aid of old systems,which require constant repair and maintenance.
At this stage, it's worth emphasizing that the healthcare context differs from other information systems application domains in that it often concerns sensitive and confidential information and leads to critical decisions on people's lives (or quality of life). Thus, stakeholder conflicts have more of an impact than in other areas such as business, trade, and manufacturing.
Healthcare is an area with quite intense differences of values,interests,professionnal backgrounds, and priorities among key stakeholders. Given the complexity of the context, health informatics in general cannot simply focus on technical or information systems aspects alone. It has to take account of their relationship with clinical and managerial processes and practices, as well as deal with mutiple stakeholders and organizational cultures and accompanying politics.
Concluding, it should be stressed that healthcare isn't only a significant industry in any economy, but also a field that needs effective means to manage data as well as information and knowledge. Managed care has emerged as an attempt to stem the escalating costs of healthcare and improve the quality of services.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 4 Feb - 7:10

Hello everyone! For this week, I'd chosed 2 parts of 2 different books. The first is:
1)Mach's Philosophy of Science and 2) Hegel's Philosophy of Mind.
1) Scientific Criticism : In the analysis of sensations Mach states that he has taken Hume as his starting point, and this starting point is reflected in his views on scientific criticism. The scientist like everyone else knows the elements with complete certainty as sensations. But scientists and other persons also make judgments that are laws or generalizations. Since the aim of science is the adaptation of thoughts to facts, a new fact may require a new adaptation, which finds its expression in the operation of judgment. A judgment is the supplementing of a sensational presentation, in order to represent more completely a sensational fact. In the adaptation of thoughts of facts the adaptation can be made only to what's constant in the facts. Only the mental construction of constant elements can yield economy. But our confidence in the constancy in our judgments or generalizations rests entirely on the supposition,which in a given case has been substantiated by numerous trials, that our mental adaptation is sufficient. And we must be prepared to find this supposition contradicted at any moment.
Therefore empirical laws as well as theories are provisional in Mach's view, but for different reasons. The empirical generalizations are provisional, because they impute constancies to an infinite number of individual occurrences of sensations while only a limited number have actually been experienced. On the other hand theories postulate things that have never been experienced.
On the other hand theories postulate things that have never been experienced; no one for example has ever (in Mach's time) actually seen atoms or molecules nor has anyone ever experienced Newtonian absolute space or absolute time. Mach didn't seem to find the provisional status of empirical laws to be very disturbing and in fact he considered them to be necessary for science to have its economy. But he considered the provisional status of theories to be an unsatisfactory expediency for science. His theory of scientific criticism includes a phenomenalist criterion that rejects theories.
Initially the Logical Positivists who followed Mach were reluctant to accept Hume's skeptical views on scientific criticism,and instead accepted the idea of « verification », the view the scientific laws or empirical generalizations can be established in some permanent sense, an idea that historically had been definitive of truly scientific knowledge. But Carnap and the Logical Positivists moved toward Mach's acceptance of scientific laws as provisionally true instead of permanently true, even as they moved away from his phenomenalism.
2)The recent attempts,already,as they deserved, forgotten to rehabilitate the Mnemonic of the ancients,consist in transforming names into images,and thus again deposing memory to the level of imagination. The place of the power of memory is taken by a permanent tableau of a series of images,fixed in the imagination, to which is then attached the series of ideas forming the composition to be learned by rote. Considering the heterogeneity between the import of these ideas and those permanent images, and the speed with which the attachment has to be made, the attachment cannot be made otherwise than by shallow, silly,and utterly accidental links. Not merely is the mind put to the torture of being worried by idiotic stuff, but what's thus learnt by rote is just as quickly forgotten,seeing that the same tableau is used for getting by rote every other series of ideas, and so those previously attached to it are effaced. What's mnemonically impressed isn't like what's retained in memory really got by heart, strictly produced from within outwards, from the deep pit of the ego, and thus recited,but is,so to speak,read off the tableau of fancy. Mnemonic is connected with the common prepossession about memory, in comparison with fancy and imagination; as if the latter were a higher and more intellectual activity than memory. On the contrary, memory has ceased to deal with an image derived from intuition,the immediate and incomplete mode of intelligence; it has rather to do with an object which's the product of intelligence itself, such a without-book as remains locked up in the within-book of intelligence,and is, within intelligence,only its outward-existing side.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 11 Feb - 7:09

Hello everyone! For this week,it will be very simple,I'd been with Hegel's Philosophy of mind all the week… I'd found it very true.

As the interconnection of the names lies in the meaning,the conjunction of their meaning with the reality as names is still an (external) synthesis; and intelligence in this its extremely hasn't made a complete and simple return into self. But intelligence is the universal ,the single plain truth of its particular self-divestments;and it's consummated appropriation of them abolishes that distinction between meaning and name. This extreme inwardising of representation is the supreme self-divestment of intelligence, in which it renders itself the mere being, the universal space of names as such, of meaningless words. The ego, which is this abstract being,is, because subjectivity,at the same time the power over the different names, the link which, having nothing in itself,fixes in itself series of them and keeps them in the stable order. So far as they merely are, and intelligence is here itself this being of theirs,its power is a merely abstract subjectivity,memory; which, on account of the complete externality in which the members of such series stand to one another, and because it's itself this erternality (subjective though that be), is called mechanical.
A composition is, as we know,not thoroughly conned by note,until one attaches no meaning to the words. The recitation of what has been thus got by heart is therefore of course accentless. The correct accent, if it's introduced,suggests the meaning : but this introduction of the signification of an idea disturbs the mechanical nexus and therefore easily throws out the reciter. The faculty of conning by note series of words, with no principle governing their succession,or which are separately meaningless, a series of proper names, is so supremely marvellous, because it's the very essence of mind to have its wits about it;whereas in this case the mind is estranged in itself,and its action is like machinery. But it's only as uniting subjectivity with objectivity that the mind has its wits about it. Whereas in the case before us, after it has in intuition been at first so external as to pick up its facts ready-made, and in representation inwardises or recollects this datum and makes it its own, it proceeds as memory to make itself external in itself, so that what's its own assumes the guise of something found. Thus one of the 2 dynamic factors of thought,viz objectivity, is here put in intelligence itself as a quality of it. It's only a step further to treat memory as mechanical, the act implying no intelligence in which case it's only justified by its uses,its indispensability perhaps for other purposes and fuctions of mind. But by so doing we overlook the proper signification it has in the mind. If it's to be the fact and true objectivity, the mere name as an existent requires something else, to be interpreted by the representing intellect. Now in the shape of mechanical memory, intelligence is at once that external objectivity and the meaning. In this way intelligence is explicitly made an existence of this identity, it's explicitlyactive as such an identity which as reason it's implicitly. Memory is in of thought,which no longer severed from the subjective,and it's inwardness doesn't need to go outside for its existence.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 18 Feb - 9:40

Hello everyone! For this week, it will be very simple again… In the Hegel's Philosopgy of mind,he discussed some good subjects… I'm sharing with you some good parts… I'll have a new book for the next week to come.
To comprehend the position and meaning of memory and to understand its organic interconnection with thought is one of the hardest points, and hitherto one quite unregarded in the theory of mind. Memory is itself the merely external mode, or merely existential aspect of thought,and thus needs a complementary element.
The passage from it to thought is to our view and implicitly the identity of reason with this existential mode : an identity from which it follows that reason only exists in a subject,and as the function of that subject. Thus active reason is thinking.
Intelligence is recognitive : it cognises an intuition, but only because that intuition is already its own; and in the name it re-discovers the fact : but now it finds its universal in the double significationof the universal as such,and of the universal as immediate or as being,finds the genuine universal which is its own unityoverlapping and including its other, viz being. Thus intelligence is explicitly, on its own part cognitive:virtually it's the universal,its product (the thought) is the thing:it's a plain identity of subjective and objective. It knows that what is thought, and that what's,only is in so far as it's a thought; the thinking of intelligence is to have thoughts:these are as its content and object. But cognition by thought is still in the first instance formal : the universality and its being is the plain subjectivity of intelligence.

The impulses and Choice :
The practical ought is a « real » judgment. Will, which is essentially immediate and merely found to hand of the existing mode to its requirement a negation,and something inappropriate to it. If the will is to satisfy itself, if the implicit unity of the universality and the special mode is to be realised, the conformity of its inner requirement and of the existent thing ought to be its act and institution. The will, as regards the form of its content,is at first still a natural will, directly identical with its specific mode : natural impulse and inclination. Should, however, the totality of the practical spirit throw itself into a single one of the many restricted forms of impulse, each being always in conflict to another, it's passion.
Inclinations and passions embody the same constituent features as the practical feeling. Thus while or one hand they are based on the rational nature of the mind; they on the other, as part and parcel of the still subjective and single will, are infected with contingency, and appear as particular to stand to the individual and to each other in an external relation and with a necessity which creates bondage. The special note in passion is its restriction to one special mode what it may. In consequence of this formalism, passion is neither good nor bad;the title only states that a subject has thrown his whole soul, his interests of intellect, talent,character,enjoyment, on one aim and object. Nothing great has been and nothing great can be accomplished without passion.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Fri 26 Feb - 6:14

I'm sorry if I'm late,but I'm a little sick this week and I had a lot of stuff to do… I read a lot these last week… It's always synchronized with my life and the continuous changing life… I'd asked an HLM recently,I'm waiting for the response to come… It's very long to do and asked a lot of questions… I hope,for this time,than it's not for nothing…
For this week,it's in continuity with the last one's,same book,same author…
It's only a dead, too often, indeed, a hypocritical moralising which inveighs against the form of passion as such.
But with regard to the inclinations, the question is directly raised,which are good and bad?
Up to what degree the good continue good; and (as there are many,each with its private range).
In what way have they, being all in one subject and hardly all, as experience shows, admitting of gratification,to suffer at least reciprocal restriction? And, first of all,as regards the numbers of these impulses and propensities, the case is much the same as with the psychical powers,whose aggregate is to form the mind theoretical, an aggregate which is now increased by the host of impulses. The nominal rationality of impulse and propensity lies merely in their general impulse not to be subjective merely, but to get realised,oversoming the subjectivity by the subject's own agency. Their genuine rationality cannot reveal its secret to a method of outer reflection which pre-supposes a number of independent innate tendencies and immediate instincts,and therefore is wanting in a single principle and final purpose for them. But the immanent « reflection » of mind itself carries it beyond their particularity and their natural immediacy,and gives their contents a ratonality and objectivity, in which thei exist as necessary ties os social relation, as rights and duties. It's this objectification which evinces their real value, their mutual connexions,and their truth. And thus it was a true perception when Plato (especially including as he did the mind's whole nature under its right) showed that the full reality of justice could be exhibited only in the objective phase of justice,viz in the construction of the State as the ethical life.

The desires which impel us to action are those that hold our attention. A desire is but an awareness of something we lack or need to make our life more enjoyable. Desires always have some personal gain in view,the greater the anticipated gain, the more intense, is the desire. There's no absolutely unselfish desire. Where there's nothing to gain there is no desire, and consequently no action. The spiritual man speaks to the natural man through the langage of desire. The key to progress in life and to the fulfillment of dreams lies in ready obedience to its voice. Unhesitating obedience to its voice is an immediate assumption of the wish fulfilled. To desire a state is to have it. As Pascal has said, «  You wouldn't have sought me had you not already found me. »
Man, by assuming the feeling of his wish fulfilled,and then living and acting on this conviction,alters the future in harmony with his assumption.
Assumptions awaken what they affirm. As soon as man assumes the feeling of his wish fulfilled, his 4-dimensional self finds ways for the attainment of this end, discovers methods for its realization. I know of no clearer definition of the means by which we realize our desires than to experience in imagination what we would experience in the flesh were we to achieve our goal. This experience of the end wills the means. With its larger outlook the 4-dimensional self then constructs the means necessary to realize the accepted end.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Wed 2 Mar - 11:37

Hello everyone! For this week,I chosed from the book:Out of this world/Neville Goddard :
Assumptions become facts :
Men believe in the reality of the external world because they don't know how to focus and condense their powers to penetrate its thin crust. This book has only one purpose, the removing of the veil of the senses, the traveling into another world. To remove the veil of the senses we don't employ great effort; the objective world vanishes by turning our attention away from it.
We have only to concentrate on the state desired in order to mentally see it,but to give it reality so that it will become an objective fact; we must focus attention upon the invisible state until it has the feeling of reality. When, through concentrated attention, our desire appears to possess the distinctness and feeling of reality,we gave given it the right to become a visible concrete fact.
If it's difficult to control the direction of your attention while in a state akin to sleep, you may find gazing fixedly into an object very helpful.
Don't look at its surface but into and beyond any plain object such as a wall,a carpet,or any other object which possesses depth. Arrange it to return as little reflection as possible. Imagine then that in this depth you are seeing and hearing what you want to see and hear until your attention is exclusively occupied by the imagined state. At the end of your meditation,when you awake from your « controlled waking dream », you feel as though you had returned from a great distance. The visible world which you had shut out returns to consciousness and by its very presence informs you that you have been self-deceived into believing that the object of your contemplation was real.
But,if you know that consciousness is the one and only reality, you'll remain faithful to your vision, and by this sustained mental attitude confirm your gift of reality, and prove that you have the power to give reality, and prove that you have the power to give reality to your desires that they may become visible concrete facts. Define your ideal and concentrate your attention upon the idea of identifying yourself with your ideal. Assume the feeling of being it, the feeling that would be yours were you already the embodiment of your ideal. Then live and act upon this conviction. This assumption, though denied by the senses, if persisted in, will become fact. You'll know when you have succeeded in fixing the desired state in consciousness by simply looking mentally at the people you know. In dialogues with yourself you are less inhibited and more sincere than in actual conversations with others, therefore the opportunity for self-analysis arises when you are surprised by your mental conversations with others. If you see them as you formerly saw them, you haven't changed your concept of self,for all changes of concepts of self result in a changed relationship to your world.
In your meditation allow others to see you as they would see you were this new concept of self a concrete fact. You always seem to others an embodiment of the ideal you inspire. Therefore, in meditation,, when you contemplate others, you must be seen by them physically were concept of self an objective fact; that's,in meditation you imagine that they see you expressing that which you desire to be.
If you assume that you are what you want to be your desire is fulfilled,and in fulfillment all longing is neutralized. You cannot continue desiring what you have already realized. Your desire isn't something you labor to fulfill,it's recognizing something you already possess. It's assuming the feeling of being that which you desire to be. Believing and being are one. The conceiver and his conception are one, therefore that which you conceive yourself to be can never be so far off as even to be near, for nearess implies separation.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 10 Mar - 7:55

Hello everyone! For this week I chosed 2 parts of 2 books,the first is:
1)Out of this world/Neville Goddard and the second's :
2)Causation/Douglas Kutach

1)The ancient teachers warned us not to judge from appearances because,said they, the truth needn't conform to the external reality to which it relates. They claimed that we bore false witness if we imagined evil against another, that no matter how real our belief appears to be, how truly it conforms to the external reality to which it relates, if it doesn't make free the one of whom we hold the belief, it's untrue and therefore a false judgment.
We are called upon to deny the evidence of our senses and to imagine as true of our neighbor that which makes him free.
« Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. » To know the truth of our neighbor we must assume that he's already that which he desires to be. Any concept we hold of another that's short of his fulfilled desire will not make him free and therefore cannot be the truth.
Instead of learning my craft in schools where attending courses and seminars is considered a substitute for self-acquired knowledge, my schooling was devoted almost exclusively to the power of imagination. I sat for hours imagining myself to be other than that which my reason and my senses dictated until the imagined states were vivid as reality, so vivid that passenby became but a part of my imagination and acted as I would have them. By the power of imagination my fantasy led theirs and dictated to them their behavior and the discourse they held together while I was identified with my imagined state.
Man's imagination is the man himself, and the world as imagination sees it's the real world, but it's our duty to imagine all that's lovely and good report.
« The Lord seeth not as man seeth,for man looketh upon the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh upon the heart. » As a man thinketh in his heart so is he.
2)However, I think there's a better reason to believe that counterfactual theories are getting at something deep about the nature of causation, namely that causes affect. It's helpful here to draw a distinction between changing the future and affecting the future. For some event c to affect the future is (by definition) for c to help make the future different from the way the future would have been if c hadn't happened. For some event c to change the future is (by definition) for c to make the future different from the way the future will actually be. A few moments of meditation on the definition of « change the future » should wrinkle some brows.
If the future just is the way things turn out, how can I make that future different from itself? If I make the actual future to begin with. If I make some alternative future become the actual future, then it wasn't an alternative future to begin with. These sorts of considerations are meant to suggest that the idea of changing the future (as I have just defined it) is incoherent. The idea of affecting the future,by contrast, makes sense because it involves a contrast between a single actual future and some hypothetical alternative future. My reason for thinking that causation requires some sort of counterfactual dependence is that affecting is inherently counterfactual. To affect is to make things different from the way they would have been. So, if causes affect at all, which they do, they affect counterfactually. That doesn't mean that we have to use the grammar or logic of ordinary langage counterfactual conditionals, but it does mean that causation somehow implicates a form of difference-making that contrasts the way things actually happened to the way things would have happened or could have happened.
We can make the observation that « causes affect » more concrete by considering causation by omission, which's what happens when a non-occurrence or absence or prevention or failure counts as a cause.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Admin on Thu 17 Mar - 6:40

Hello everyone! For this week it will be more complex…
1)Causation/Douglas Kutach and 2)Answering Atheism and Agnosticism Series/Wael El-Manzalawy
It's about causes and effects in the functionning of the universe.
1)Yet another possible response (from an advocate of counterfactual theories) is to accept that the negative events are all genuine causes but then explain why we don't normally cite them in causal explanations.
It's true that the lack of a hungry unicorn nearby was one of the causes of the flower blooming, but it's almost always uninformative to cite the absence of unicorns because it applies to all blooming events and thus doesn't tell us anything particular to this one flower. Unfortunately, this last strategy is also deficient because it proves too much. If the philosopher's game allows us to count a multitude of events as bona fide causes and then explain why we don't normally think of them as causes by appealing to pragmatic considerations (like the uninformativeness of citing them), then we could ask why the counterfactual theory deserves credit for counting the poisoning of the canteen as a non-cause. For it's all too easy to declare that poisoning the canteen was a genuine cause of the traveler's demise,e,and to explain why,for various practical reasons,people tend to think of it as a non-cause. For example, the fact that the traveler showed non of the usual effects of poison is a good reason for thinking that e didn't exhibit the particular kind of death that usually occurs when poison is the main cause of death. Nevertheless, these facts don't constitute evidence for the poisoning being an unremarkable, unexplanatory, and ignorable cause of e. The lack of a clean distinction between genuine non-causes and events that are genuine but insufficiently note worthy causes points toward a troubling lack of rigor in philosophers standards for what counts as an adequate theory of causation. If an advocate of a counterfactual theory of causation is permitted to explain away common sense judgments about non-causation, then why not go further and just adopt the simplest theory of causation ever? Here is a definition for the simplest theory of causation : For any event e, and any event c, c is a cause of e. In a slogan,the simple theory of causation proclaims, «  Everything is a cause of everything. » When presented with the counterexample of a c and e that have nothing to do with one another, the advocate of the simple theory of causation can trot out his pat response : « Sure, there are lots of good reasons why people tend to think of c as not being a cause of e, but those reasons are merely pragmatic. They explain why c isn't worth citing in causal explanations of e, why c isn't a good means for bringing about e, why knowledge of c doesn't help anyone predict e's occurrence, and so on.
….
Our partiality in our own favour does indeed present it on all occasions; but sound philosophy ought carefully to guard against so natural an illusion. So far from admitting,continued philo, that the operations of a part can afford us any just conclusion concerning the origin of the whole, I will not allow any one part to form a rule for another part, if the latter be very remote from the former. Is there any reasonable ground to conclude,hat the inhabitants of other planets possess thought,intelligence, reason, or any thing similar to these faculties in men? When nature has so extremely diversified her manner of operation in this small globe, can we imagine that she incessantly copies herself throughout so immense a universe?
2)Now, if we survey the universe, so far as it falls under our knowledge, it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organised body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it produces no disorder: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired : the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system : and each part or member, in performing its proper offices, operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole. The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal; and the Deity is the soul of the world, actuating it, and actuated by it.
Matter may change from one form to another form, but matter doesn't come from nothing. Atheists say that there was a kind of original matter at the beginning of the universe. I'll ask atheists some questions :
1-Can yoy create matter from nothing? Go to the laboratory and prove it. All you can do is to change matter from one form to another.
2-What's the origin of this original matter? You atheists will say that this original matter just existed and you'll say your common comment : « Why do you believe that the God just existed and you don't believe that this original matter just existed?
Matter can't come from nothing. So this original matter can't come from nothing because this is against all the rules of matter.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 735
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 34

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophie...

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum