List of most reported websites to Google, from Google Transparency Report ( ^_^ ).

acteon29 · 2012-05-26T16:50:40.605001+00:00

And who the real friends of freedom are ;-)

Quothefool · 4 days

Depends on how you define "induction" and "science".

If you define them as "predicting the future by learning from the past", then certainly none of them has a rational foundation.

But if you define them as "reducing complex empirical information by detecting patterns and regularities and by supressing redundancies, to have simpler and easier to use information", or, in short, if you define them as "finding out the things that have been repeating themselves in the past until now, regardless of whether they'll keep repeating themselves in the future", then not only are "science" and "induction" valid and rationally founded, but we can build programmable machines to automatically detect those empirical patterns that constitute science.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Epiphany/comments/tk3t5/a_little_epiphany_about_science/

Kida89 · 4 days

Oxymoron much?

acteon29 · 4 days

Thanks for the reference. Not that I'm not interested, but I have to admit my current circumstances are not the best ones to follow an in-depth discussion, as well as we seem to be holding different conceptual dispositions about how to develop a discussion on this matter. Perhaps it's my fault. But thanks for your reference in any case and thanks for your comments :-))))

acteon29 · 5 days

"It's not ethical, it's philosophical"

Why?

"The purpose of philosophy is, at it's most simplified, answering the question "why" as applicable to the topic at hand"

Why?

"I don't think there's an ethical mandate to do philosophy"

Why?

"Anyone can make a list of "commandments," but why should anyone listen to them? Why are they better or worse than others?"

Why should I consider that you are right about the things you say?

acteon29 · 5 days

Why do you ask 'why'? Why is it ethical to ask 'why'?

acteon29 · 7 days

Some rules are implied by others.

About your questions concerning 1) and 2): we should try to survive and to keep living and existing, because if we destroy ourselves, then Ethics itself will be destroyed with us, and Ethics shouldn't rule its own destruction.

(Many other possible answers, though)

"Anyone can make a list of "commandments," but why should anyone listen to them? Why are they better or worse than others?"

If I tell you: "you should try to keep living and existing, instead of destroying yourself", and then you ask me: "why is that a good rule?", then I don't really have many complex explanations to give you.

acteon29 · 7 days

I changed the formulation, I hope it's better now.

acteon29 · 7 days

I see you can only contribute your barking. If you can read and understand this, this is a philosophy related subreddit, I suggest that you subscribe r/dogs

acteon29 · 7 days

Some rules are included within\implied by others.

Thanks for the reference, by the way.

acteon29 · 8 days

That means I get no cookie?

phileconomicus · 8 days

Nothing in Biology (including death) makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Individual (limited) life makes no sense, except in the light of an evolving species, within the context of a whole Biosphere.

This means that if your own personal life is individuality-oriented, then you are living it wrong from a biological-scientific-intellectual point of view.

acteon29 · 10 days

Consider a basic frequency "f", as a basic pitch.

Consider the 15 most consonant pitches to that f. These are the pitches 2f, 3f, 4f, ..., 16f.

Divide every one of these most consonant pitches by 2 as many times as necessary to get them between the basic pitch f and the pitch 2f (which is the octave pitch). That is: (2/2)f=f, (3/2)f=1.5f, (4/(2x2))f=f, (5/(2x2))f=1.25f, ... , (15/(2x2x2))f=1.875f, (16/(2x2x2x2))f=f .

You get an 8-pitch scale which is the most possible consonant 8-pitch scale, due to the simplicity of the used ratios.

It is easy to verify that you can generate ALL the pitches from that scale by another alternative method: just by adding (1/(2x2x2))f=0.125f a natural number of times "n" to the basic pitch f. For instance, you could generate (5/(2x2))f as f+(2x0.125)f, where 2 is a natural number.

This, by definition, means that our most consonant 8-pitch scale is just an arithmetic progression starting with f and with a constant difference 0.125f .

You could think: "Fuck yeah!! I have a perfectly consonant 8-pitch scale for making music! I can use all these 8 pitches freely because they'll always sound good!"

The problem is our ear is not "fine tuned", it is not as perfect as we'd need it to be to fully enjoy that scale. Why?

If we wanted to use our optimally consonant 8-pitch scale just designed, then, in the cases that we wanted a piece of melody to sound 'the same' regardless of how low or high we played or 're-played' (transposed) it, we'd need our ear to consider that a piece of melody sounds 'the same' when the set or structure of frequency differences among that melody piece's single frequencies (pitches) remains the same. In this case, the transposition of a melody would be as easy as adding a constant frequency or frequency difference, distance or jump to every one of the melody's pitches. If our ear worked like this, then if one invented some short melody to be played among the lowest pitches of our 8-pitch optimally consonant scale, and then replayed (transposed) that melody to among the highest pitches, by keeping the structure of distances or jumps among the melody's pitches by adding some constant frequency jump or difference, then we could hear that melody as remaining tonally 'the same'.

The problem is that our ear doesn't work like that. Our ear considers that a melody piece sounds 'the same' when the set or structure of frequency proportions (not differences) between the melody's pitches (frequencies) remains the same. That is, to transpose a melody, you have to multiply every one of its pitches (frequencies) by some constant proportion, instead of adding some constant frequency.

It is easy to verify that, since our optimally consonant 8-pitch scale is arithmetic, which means that it keeps as constant the structure of frequency differences or jumps among melodies' pitches, then it won't keep as constant the proportions among pitches' frecuencies.

comtohum · 13 days

Life has no "meaning", in the sense you ask. Why? Bacteria or trees are living beings, but they don't need or use a "meaning of life".

If you want to wonder about a "meaning of human life", then I'd say we have to take into account our condition and definition as animals. We are animals. Something like a "meaning" resides within the activity of our animal brain, and therefore within our animal nervous system, and therefore within our animal locomotor system, and the locomotor system is what makes higher animals be animals, instead of plants for instance. So, what's the meaning of human life? It's the same as the meaning of animal life: to behave, as an animal (that is, as what you are), for surviving; in other words, to behave as an animal (by using your locomotor system, including your brain) for providing yourself with your own existence, with your own life. In short: the meaning of human and animal life is to try to keep living. This makes you use your most specialized resources: for instance, in the human case, our distinguishing evolutionary resource to try to keep living is our intelligence.

If you want to find some meaning that goes beyond human/animal meaning and human/animal life, then fortunately the 'universal' meaning is somewhat similar to that of the human/animal life: the 'physical sense' of life is 'to try to survive, to try to keep living'. The features that make every biological system be biological, are those features that increase the possibilities of survival and of existence of that system, such as the system's defenses, and, more generally, the system's adaptations to the surrounding environment.

For example: if you hit a stone, the stone will do nothing; but if you hit a biological system, then the biological system will try to repair the possible damage. This is what distinguishes living beings from non-living beings.

In reality it is just a complexity distinction; the biological systems are much more complex than non-biological systems, like stones. This is the reason why biological systems get somewhat defined by their complexity, which opposes them to things like entropy, etc...

cruise02 · 15 days

Thanks a lot :-D

cruise02 · 15 days

It is perfectly possible, if you find the suitable source. If the source is suitable, then even a chimpanzee can learn advanced physics.

But finding the suitable source is really difficult, since there are many bad works out there.

In other words: the difficult thing is not Physics itself or the learning of Physics itself; the difficult thing is finding the suitable and qualified source.

This happens with Physics, Maths, Computing...

cruise02 · 15 days

This is orgasmic, as well as ethical to immorality; thanks

acteon29

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login