The White Room 10

Comment on Brains in Vats - Addition

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

Addition to "Philosophical Notes...": I can certainly say that there's no way that philosophy escapes reality. So even the philosophical arguments, whatever they are, need to be plausible (in realistic terms, otherwise they can't obtain a truth value). You can't simply write something, call it philosophy and think that it applies if it's rubbish, fantasy or whatever... There are indeed quality criteria... Brains in Vats: even if you envision a brain in a vat in a world in world type of setting, that is, it's possible to construct a brain in a vat in this world of reality (or some other), you need to show for it's absolute impossibility to always obtain "a natural death" in case of an intruder who destroys your brain-in-a-vat. Usually, brains in vats come as the idea that some God-like scientists set up the whole reality in this kind of machine (brains in vats). Further, one should show for how this can be sustained as life-form and engaging in an illusionary reality in a way that can be perceived as natural without any limitations whatsoever! I think this is both impossible and implausible and this is my conclusion. "Brains in vats" lacks the virtues to be convincing!

As for comparison, I must say the Brains in Vats-argument looks as weak as Astrology does in Philosophy of Science.

This has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 26th August, 2010.

Religious Address - New writing to the blog

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

New writing: I think Europe should copy Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin in addressing religiousness in the U.S. American sense by twisting it a little and making an address of "Open Religiousness and Spirituality", making possible a better relationship between all religious people, but also inviting or remain open to agnostics. I, personally, find it to be genious to encourage people to be religious (and spiritual) because such people seem more forthcoming in contributing to society and less egoist in the process! To a more religious and spiritual Europe! Cheers!

Psychiatric Views and Findings - Addition

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

The absurd privacy argument: the unserious mental health business seems to hide behind an alleged, rather dubiously, privacy vulnerability on behalf of the patients. I must say it's implausible given that they already store medical information, physically or digitally, that's incredibly sensitive and does represent a significant embarassment to the patient in case in gets into the wrong hands. There are also good examples of relatively (equal to all other standards, even the existing ones) safe storage and in digital network like the Police, banking, (health) insurance, communication businesses (telephone and internet companies) and other places that keep information people like to be private.

(Some information has also been added concerning telepathy and the word "inclination".)

More Quotes - New quotes

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

"The biggest difference between an intelligent person and an idiot is the intelligent person enjoys learning new things whereas the idiot doesn't." - Metadigital

"Believing in God doesn't make you moral. Not believing in God doesn't make you intelligent." - Metadigital

"There are wise people and there are rude people, and there is very little overlap between the two." - Metadigital
The quotes are provided by Metadigital of the PN forum, forum.philosophynow.org.

The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Philosophical Discipline - New writing to the page

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

The Conditions for Abolishment of Ethics as a Philosophical Discipline

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:48 am UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

I've been wondering if Dr. Sam Harris is right about ethics as mere psychology. I think it's plausible that he's at least partly right! (I'm also wondering if this has been said/written by myself while in the ethics semester at university in 2000.) But here it goes: If this is not about priorities, ethically, beyond the moment Utopia takes effect, it should be plausible that ethics is merely psychology and some more! So what does morality mean as expressed by ethics if it all comes down to being a healthy and happy person? Isn't this the fact in case it is true that the natural sciences (and possibly in combination with the social sciences, incl. psych) that ethics is "useless"/not necessary as own discipline in philosophy? (I consider psychology/neurology natural science in this writing, also.) Abolish ethics in philosophy?

Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:31 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

My question is however, do you seriously imply that psychology doesn't know what health and happiness is when it's conducted in normative terms? Turning it a little, I don't think physicists get that much (useful) input from the philosophers these days! As such I think you fail to address these three issues: Utopia, scientific confirmation of health and happiness. You are therefore not entirely on the subject, I think.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:01 am UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Metadigital wrote: Isn't one of the major points of philosophy to try and figure out what things like happiness are? With psychology alone, wouldn't any explanation end up being mechanistic or reductionist? Wouldn't it have to attempt to explain these things in terms of brain chemistry, behavioral patterns, or cognitive mechanisms? Would that give us a complete picture? I'm skeptical of that. What would guide psychology? Where would it go? How would it benefit us? Why bother with it? It seems to me like there's a lot of things that psychology can't tackle alone without the help of philosophy. I think this applies to all the sciences.The question is if science is capable of answering ethics in its entirety until Utopia? If Utopia is achieved, what does ethics mean beyond that other than considering priorities like whether to go base-jumping or surfing and other priorities of insignificance (because one lives in Utopia)? Isn't Utopia very much achievable by science, you think? I think it's plausible we can achieve Utopia even by a severe stagnation in today's science, we have what we need! Now, I'm not going to speculate if psychology can answer ethics alone because the question isn't principally important to this topic. Perhaps you can raise it under the Phil. of Science? Where would psychology go? Everywhere that's relevant for psychology to go until psychology contains a complete explanation or has reached explanatory exhaustion according to possibilities. Subject as such needs no "guidance", it just needs development! My dear, where is philosophy itself going to go in case it needs "guidance"? Exactly the same answer again! A subject gives itself once it's clear that it's possible to develop it. You should remember how much that used to be considered philosophy in the past until it branched out into various scientific disciplines.

Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:32 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Let me tell it in a different way: Science should by this point be very much able to determine good phyical health and good mental health. It should also be able to determine if people are happy in a healthy way (not enjoying crime like rapes and other violations of people).
Now that we are able to do this, by fMRI and all the rest, shouldn't we just stick to the rules and regulations that fulfill these objectives the best? Of course, we should! Otherwise, we support what we should kill, the crime, the unethical!

If you think about it, everyone likes to discover truth, to develop, to puzzle, to play, to be curious, to make enterprises, to display themselves by who they are and their skills and knowledge in general. So, is there any mystery in determining what the obstacle is in achieving this for potentially every single person on the planet? Certainly not! And we don't need ethics to do it either!

So to end this: give me one example that require ethics to be solved! I'll answer every one of your questions within the scope of health, both phy. and men., and happiness in the scope of opportunities!

Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:08 am UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

Metadigital writes:
"1. America sends a lot of food to countries where starvation is a huge problem. This is done out of concern for the well being of those people. The populations of the countries that receive this aid constantly grow just above the level of food available. Is continuing to send food to these rising populations (who are now dependent on aid) ethical?"

I think this kind of problem may be one of the simplest. Without touching the philosophical vocabulary concerning ethics, I think one should send sufficient food to food deprived populations as well as enter discussion on what is the desired population level in these areas/countries or this area/country. In addition, one may want to facilitate about changes that get the problem areas or countries out this cycle. All in all, the area of jurisdiction enter some kind of general vote on the country's future on a number of issues which are all reasonable, like a key issue of population. According to this, planning takes place to make permanent and self-sustaining changes. I mean, one has over 260 nations in the world where one country should be a good example to this area/country in question. Do I need to go further?

Metadigital writes:
"2. In a similar situation, America sends financial aid to foreign countries that have weak infrastructures. This financial aid, of course, is given on a conditional basis. Because these countries develop an infrastructure that relies on American aid to avoid an internal collapse, they become dependent this aid to the point of damaging their own sovereignty over their affairs. Is this an ethical practice for America?"

The aid is all well and good! I think you are unclear on why this money damages their sovereignty. Rather (US) America should facilitate a richer financial life for this nation in addition, perhaps with the help of other nations as well. It's clear that countries that receive financial help they become dependent on, are in a situation where more development is needed and to deny this extra help is to waste resources to a deficient country, obviously! A well working country is a country that usually generates a surplus in the eyes of the world, in being hospitable, having exciting culture, generating fine industry and minds. All in all just stays healthy and being a civilised place to the world, including taking deep participation into Res. and Dev. and knowledge business (incl. education). This is also without any philosophical ethics jargon!

Metadigital writes:
"3. To stop picking on America, and to illustrate a real world event that took place; A hospital is choosing between two people to receive a new kidney. They have a list that they usually go by, but a private individual has offered $1,000,000 to be placed at the top of the list. This rich individual is a heavy drinker and will likely die in the next few years anyway, but the money can be used to upgrade medical facilities and benefit more people (keep in mind that this is the early 20th century!). The person who is actually at the head of the list is young with many more years of potential life left. What is the ethical decision to make? (I'll post the decision actually made after your reply.)"

1. It's unknown whether the hospital actually needs more equipment and thus I see no definite use for the extra money: the kidney goes to the young man.

2. The other way may be that the hospital needs the equipment dearly (in life saving terms and not plastic surgery) and may help 10 extra people every year from dying (far outweighing the young man's extra years). Thus: the kidney goes to the rich man. It should also be noted that is without corruption and that the transplant list is without absolute rules! This is also without any philosophical ethics jargon!

There you have them. You may object by saying this is ethics and thereby philosophy, but I say of course that this is ethics solved by purely scientific considerations! There is not one word that pertains to philosophy, inherently, in them!

Scribblings From the Internet - Addition

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

The posts, mine, of Philosophy Now forum have now been copied/added to the page. There are some posts on it from Philosophy Forums as well as I've just started to add these.

On Paradoxes - Addition

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:00:00 GMT

Addition to "Philosophical Notes...": Liar's Paradox: I consider the Liar's paradox to be meaningless. If one ends up in a Liar's paradox in the first place, I suggest there's something wrong with the descriptions or explanations. So you should improve on these before one give's up on the situation and ends in Liar's paradox. It's also puzzling to me how Liar's paradox enters Godel's Incompleteness argument. I'll look more into Godel's Incompletenss, but this is not important to this writing. My opinion on Liar's paradox stands!

Paradox of the Ravens: It's clear to me that the Raven paradox is call an "intuitive" paradox, but I say that serious inquiry doesn't allow for intuitive paradoxes and one should be looking for the deeper solutions to the simple enrichment of life-experience. I refer you to what I've written on this paradox before.

Zeno's Paradox: This is also meaningless! However, I think the importance of this paradox lies in the way you apply your tools, being both mathematical descriptions and all other descriptions and concepts you can think of. To refute it is simply to designate and add units like the meter for the distance in question! As I've written, this is a good example of abuse of mathematics, philosophy and all else. It's one to learn from in order to provide good skills in whatever subject you like to involve with!

As for comparison, I must say the Brains in Vats-argument looks as weak as Astrology does in Philosophy of Science.

This has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 27th August, 2010 and also published on my website(s) the same day. However, I first report it by RSS today, excuse me.

Addition to "An Attack on Indexicality"

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:35:00 GMT

Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:32 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org

I've written "Indexical Free" on the examples above and this is not correct (although essentially, it is). I'm now going to put a lid on this indexical coffin for good!

Here it follows:
(the list from SEP, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/, is 'I', 'he', 'she', 'this', and 'that'; 'here', 'now', 'actually', 'presently', 'today', 'yesterday', and 'tomorrow'; 'my', 'his', 'her', 'actual', and 'present' (some may include 'given' too))
Indexical free, from before (IF*):
John Perry once followed a trail of sugar on a supermarket floor, pushing John Perry's cart down the aisle on one side of a tall counter and back the aisle on the other, seeking the shopper with a torn sack to tell the shopper with a torn sack that the shopper with a torn sack was making a mess. With each trip around the counter, the trail became thicker. But John Perry seemed unable to catch up. Finally it dawned on John Perry. John Perry was the shopper John Perry was trying to catch.
John Perry believed at the outset that the shopper with a torn sack was making a mess. And John Perry was right. But John Perry didn't believe that John Perry was making a mess. That seems to be something John Perry came to believe. And when John Perry came to believe that, John Perry stopped following the trail around around the counter, and rearranged the torn sack in John Perry's cart. John Perry's change in beliefs seems to explain John Perry's change in behaviour.
John Perry is making a mess.

Indexical free, now (IF):
John Perry once followed a trail of sugar on a supermarket floor, pushing John Perry's cart down the aisle on one side of a tall counter and back the aisle on the other, seeking the shopper with a torn sack to tell the shopper with a torn sack that the shopper with a torn sack was making a mess. With each trip around the counter, the trail became thicker. But John Perry seemed unable to catch up. Finally it dawned on John Perry. John Perry was the shopper John Perry was trying to catch.
John Perry believed at the outset that the shopper with a torn sack was making a mess. And John Perry was right. But John Perry didn't believe that John Perry was making a mess. The belief of John Perry that John Perry was making a mess seems to be something John Perry came to believe. And when John Perry came to believe that John Perry was making a mess, John Perry stopped following the trail around around the counter, and rearranged the torn sack in John Perry's cart. John Perry's change in beliefs seems to explain John Perry's change in behaviour.
John Perry is making a mess. (Changes have been underlined.)

IF*:
In the first a professor, who desires to attend the department meeting on time, and believes correctly that the department meeting begins at noon, sits motionless in the professor's office at the moment of time. Suddenly the professor begins to move. What explains the professor's action? A change in belief. The professor believed all along that the department meeting starts at noon; the professor came to believe, as the professor would have put the words, that the meeting starts at the moment the professor realises the time, noon.

IF:
In the first a professor, who desires to attend the department meeting on time, and believes correctly that the department meeting begins at noon, sits motionless in the professor's office at the moment of time. Suddenly the professor begins to move. What explains the professor's action? A change in belief. The professor believed all along that the department meeting starts at noon; the professor came to believe, as the professor would have put the words, that the meeting starts at the moment the professor realises the time, noon. (There is actually no need for changes to this. Object if you disagree, please.)

IF*:
The author of the book, Hiker's Guide to the Desolation Wilderness, stands in the wilderness beside Gilmore Lake, looking at the Mt. Tallac trail as the Mt. Tallac trail leaves the lake and climbs the mountain. The author desires to leave the wilderness. The author believes that the best way out from Gilmore Lake is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail up the mountain to Cathedral Peaks trail, on to the Floating Island trail, emerging at Spring Creek Tract Road. But the author does not move. The author is lost. The author isn't sure whether the author is standing beside Gilmore Lake, looking at Mt. Tallac, or beside Clyde Lake looking at Jack's peak, or beside Eagle Lake looking at one of the Maggie peaks. Then the author begins to move along the Mt. Tallac trail. If asked, the author would have explained the crucial change in the author's beliefs in the following way: "The author came to believe that the trail the author is perceiving is the Mt. Tallac trail and the lake the author is perceiving is Gilmore Lake."

IF:
The author of the book, Hiker's Guide to the Desolation Wilderness, stands in the wilderness beside Gilmore Lake, looking at the Mt. Tallac trail as the Mt. Tallac trail leaves the lake and climbs the mountain. The author desires to leave the wilderness. The author believes that the best way out from Gilmore Lake is to follow the Mt. Tallac trail up the mountain to Cathedral Peaks trail, on to the Floating Island trail, emerging at Spring Creek Tract Road. But the author does not move. The author is lost. The author isn't sure whether the author is standing beside Gilmore Lake, looking at Mt. Tallac, or beside Clyde Lake looking at Jack's peak, or beside Eagle Lake looking at one of the Maggie peaks. Then the author begins to move along the Mt. Tallac trail. If asked, the author would have explained the crucial change in the author's beliefs in the following way: "The author came to believe that the trail the author is perceiving is the Mt. Tallac trail and the lake the author is perceiving is Gilmore Lake." (There is actually no need for changes to this either. Object if you disagree, please.)

To the uninitiated: there are several meanings of "that" in English. In the indexical sense, one wishes to take out "pronoun" and "adjective", leaving "adverb" and "conjunction" out because they are not relevant, simply. Thus only one example has been modified!

An extra note: by this, I supersede both Hans Reichenbach and John Perry so there's no need to pretend.

Perhaps, for those who may have finished "that" before me, I say "I made this" and you reply "I fixed "that""!

Notes on Schizophrenia - New webpage

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:35:00 GMT

Here are notes on Schizophrenia. I think it may be useful to collect some good information on Schizophrenia so that we can more clearly see how the dots connect as time goes by. Cheers!

To the webpage, directly:
http://www.t-lea.net/schizophrenia.html

Scribblings From the Internet - New webpage

t.lea@t-lea.net (Terje Lea) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:46:00 GMT

You can enter it as you enter (generally) the other pages, through the idents or through the crossroads. If you can't stand disorganisation, don't enter it just yet. I have some 1200 (appx.) posts to write to the page and we'll see how it turns out. The page has already been up for a few days (since 19.).