Search Ideas
2797 ideas match your query.:
freedom of association
It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it.
There's a lot of meanings for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?
Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?
There's a lot of meaning for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?
Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?
If rationality and peace required unlimited resources and time, you’d be at war all the time, because resources and time are always limited. But you’re not at war all the time. So rationality and peace can’t require unlimited resources and time.
They require things like openness to debate, creativity, freedom of association, etc.
I haven't advocating the consistency. But could you be more specific, which one?
No. You’re polluting Veritula with incoherent ramblings. Veritula is meant for serious philosophical work, not navel-gazing.
We have a rule (#4460) against behavior that sabotages debate and progress. Your ramblings are derailing debate. The amount of posts in such a short amount of time is also borderline spammy.
Take a break for a day or two. Be selective about what you respond to. Keep your posts short. And stop rambling.
There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
Do you not see the blatant contradictions in your own writing?
[T]here's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics.
This is induction, see Popper.
And so for real-world rational subject there inevitable appears necessity of competition, ability to lie, on addition to the cooperation.
What do you think about such acts as an example of manifestation of the intelligence, abilities to:
- Perceive
- Ask
- Lie
- Joke
- Change
Okay, it looks like, counter-argumenting isn't enough to make a more interesting model by eliminating contradictions, let's try to find a common ground constructively, and use them as a fruitful source of improvement possibilities, I hope you do not perceive my, a bit informal way of express counter-arguments, personally, but as a valuable opportunity to test and improve worldview, as so do I, or just because of curiosity, anyway there's no reason to protect any fragile theory, except for a practice and for a cognitive workout purpose. So, back to the point: how your worldview model deals with Kuhn's stance of epistemic's non-monotonic nature? Do you have some formal semantic/logic in mind? Intuitionistic/nonmonotonic/relevance/modal, in particular epistemic/doxastic/temporal logics? There's pretty interesting matching and reachability logics: http://www.matching-logic.org . The https://cis.temple.edu/~pwang/NARS-Intro.html model looks promising. But there's a lot of opportunities to improve/overcome computation complexity issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion), and probably re-imagining, what computers are -- could be the key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer). I agree with the take that only proofs counts which possible to run on the computer. But at the end, any computer or any person -- are just phenomenons at reality, not available for the direct observation and verification, so, after all, at the end -- it's all just vibes around the silent essence.
The certainty that one able to know something in advance.
The root of all kind of discriminations and profanity, for example.
Agree, you right, accepting the mistake.
Would you like to tell more what you found important from the Popper's work?
As you wish.
Is prejudgment and conformism any good?
I’m not advocating conformism.
What you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.
Even if that were true, that doesn’t mean we need to endure unhappiness or stasis until then.
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else.
This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.
There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.
What's bad in being irrational?
Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.