Gees

Swansont; Exactly. In the clip when the player argues, "When I call it a game, you call it business, but when I call it business, you call it a game." I would bet good money that no matter who is speaking, when it is called a game, it is being considered from a subjective perspective; when it is called a business, it is being considered from an objective perspective. Just like when the boss says, "Quit playing a game and get to work.", what he is actually saying is stop the activity that engages your interests (subjective) and start the activity that engages my interests (objective). So in order for something to be a game, it needs to satisfy or address a subjective need or want. As Else noted, it also needs to be voluntary. Considering this, I am not sure that most video games actually qualify as games. Gee

Overtone; I can agree that The Great Game has players and that these players are involved in a political game. But I did not say "players", what I stated was "participants" in a war. The players are not in Afghanistan; the players are power brokers. Politics may be a game, but war is not. The participants in The Great Game's war are the Afghans and the soldiers. The participants would not call war a game, if you do not believe me, then go to any Veteran's Hospital and ask. Swansont gave a very clear and concise definition of a game; String Junky also gave a good definition, as did the OP, but all of these definitions could explain work as well as a game. What is the difference? I suspect it is in the word, play. A game is played, but work is necessary. I have seen actors on talk shows, who state that they are amazed that they can earn so much money by playing. On the other hand, I recently learned that the NFL has a trust fund set up for "players" who end up having their brains damaged in the "game". So the line between what is play, a game, and what is work, can be difficult to define. Children play to learn; Peek-a-Boo is fun for a year or so; stacking blocks is fun until they get good at it. So learning, honing skills, competition and proving one's self, and social interaction or bonding are all reasons why we play games. I suspect that these reasons are at the root of the enjoyment that John Cuthber noted. It looks to me as though the common factor is that a game serves an immediate subjective goal. Whereas work serves an objective goal, to produce, repair, design, or manipulate something, or to get paid to do it. Work has subjective value, but it is indirect, after the fact. So if this subjective goal was added to the definitions already stated, I think we would have a valid definition of a game. Maybe? Thoughts? Gee

Delta1212; Regarding the vacuuming, I would like to agree with you, but my Grandmother could numb your mind for hours about proper housekeeping -- vacuuming included. She thinks that we don't actually keep house anymore; we just neaten it and buy air fresheners. Regarding war, I always lean toward experience, rather than armchair philosophy. People who actually participate in war do not call it a game. Gee

Tar; It's been a while. No. Davidivad's statements are clear and concise. You can't go around calling things mystical or religious just because you don't understand them. Maybe some examples would help to clarify this issue for you. Consider: When I was a teen, I watched a movie about Jim Thorpe, American Indian and Olympic gold medal winner. In one scene he was in school talking to another student, who was also an Indian, and that student asked, "Why is it that when the White man wins, they call it a great victory, but when the Indian wins, they call it a terrible massacre?" He had a point. If the Indians had been writing that history, the words, victory and massacre, would have been reversed, because that was their truth. Truth is relevant to perspective. I hated the SOB, but I did not kill him. Truth. I was at home alone when he was murdered. Truth. The Court found me guilty of murdering him. Two truths led to a ie. The best example for this is in the story of King Solomon regarding the two babies. Two women were brought before him with two babies, one dead and one alive. Both women claimed to be the mother of the live baby. The first lie. King Solomon offered to cut the live baby in half and give half to each mother. It is generally agreed that Solomon had no intention of doing this, hence the second lie. One woman fell prostrate at King Solomon's feet, begged for the baby to be given whole and alive to the other woman, and declared herself to be a deceiver and liar. The third lie, and the one that proved that she was indeed the rightful Mother. King Solomon pulled truth out of three lies. If I state that I am alive, it is the truth, but will it be the truth tomorrow? Next week? Next year? Maybe. Truth is relevant to time. What would the double-slit experiment imply about these things? What is true? What is real? But would the person, who made that call think that it was boneheaded? Or that it was a good call? We all learn about truth from our parents when we are very young, and truth is a simple straightforward thing at that time. But we are no longer children, so we can not imagine truth to be what we would like it to be. We can't pretend. Truth is not static like fact. Truth is relevant. It is like philosophy's own special relativity. (chuckle) Gee

This could describe vacuuming a carpet or going to war. Are those games too? Gee

Members; This is a subject that all philosophers study, and I am no exception. What must be considered is that there is more than one kind of truth, and that these different kinds of truth are more or less reliable because truth is always relevant. Truth is relevant to time and to perspective. I think that I broke truth down into six different categories or kinds, then labeled them as to the least reliable, Simple truth, and the most reliable, Facts and Truisms. Everything in Davidivad's above quote is true. It is actually quite good for a person who claims to not be a philosopher. OR the truth may well be that Bob is pretending to be upset because he wants Martha's attention, and Martha has a very nice body. (chuckle chuckle) Gee

John Cuthber; I think maybe you are confusing two issues. Slavery, in and of itself, was not originally such a bad thing, and may have been the best choice in some situations. Consider two villages that were at war; when one village is defeated, it may no longer have the ability to provide for its people. So what do the winners do? They can leave the people to starve, kill them off, or bring them home. If they decide to bring them home, they can not allow the defeated people to have any authority or status because the defeated people would be dangerous. There would be too much bad feeling and anger left over from the war. Eventually, most of these "slaves" would gradually incorporate into the new society, so that in a few generations, no one would really care who was the ancestor of a slave and who was not. This is how it worked in many tribal societies. But once you incorporate racism, everything changes -- then true evil can result from slavery. So I do not see the problem as "slavery", I see it as "racism". There are some religions that support racism, and they are evil; there are some religions that do not support racism. My Great Grandmother came over from Ireland as an indentured servant right after the Great Potato Famine. She brought her younger sister and was indentured to a shopkeeper for seven years for their passage. She was in her late teens and caught the eye of a wealthy farmer, who was a widower with eight children. He paid off her indenture, married her, and she gave him 12 more children. So one could say that she just changed masters and was a slave all of her life, or one could say that she was lucky found love and lived happily ever after -- it just depends on how you tell the story. But one thing is clear to me; if she were black, he would never have married her, her children would have been bastards, and they would never have gone to college. G

Members; Some thoughts to share and questions to consider. Although on a personal level, I can agree with this because morals are based on emotion, and empathy for others would seem to be the base for morality. But I still find the above quote to be very naive, as it dismisses the fact that morality is judged objectively. Villain makes a very good point here, because humans have an immense capacity to corrupt themselves and to believe that this corruption is good and virtuous and moral -- history proves this. Now there are those who would like to say that this "corruption" is because of religion, but I would argue that religions are made up of people. It is the people, themselves, that must corrupt their emotions with immoral thoughts -- anger, hate, envy, greed, jealousy, etc., the very emotions that religions warn against. If you go to a prison and talk to the inmates, do you honestly believe that they will all be totally lacking in empathy? Do they believe themselves to be immoral? Yet they are there because they have been judged immoral. TaoRich; I do not agree. I singled out "murder" because I already have the information to rebut your position on this issue. I don't know where you got your information, but it is my opinion that religion has contributed a great deal to our moral laws, and there is nothing "trivial" about it. I studied law (I am not a lawyer) and can give you a brief rundown of the history of how our U.S. laws developed -- excluding Constitutional law and specialized areas of law. Before our nation started, Courts used the laws of England, so this is where our case law, and our Common Law, began -- except for Louisiana, as that state started with French case law and Common Law. Case law is easy to understand as that is simply a compilation of previously judged cases, but what is Common Law? According to my Black's Law Dictionary, Common Law is; "As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of Legislatures, the Common Law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the Courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs, and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England." An easier way to describe it is that our Common Law is our moral law, and comprises the judgments concerning what is moral back to the time of antiquity. It is important to note that Common Law, or moral law, does make a huge difference in a case, which is why a thief can get ten years in prison for robbing your home -- because theft is immoral -- but a CEO will get a slap on the wrist for depriving thousands of people of their retirement savings -- because that is just a business mistake; not immoral. So now that we have traced Common Law back to England, we have to take it back in time to the Feudal Period. The Christian Lords of the land were the Judges, and books were rare, so if they needed help deciding a judgment, what book do you think they reached for? What book of law was commonly available? Deuteronomy and Leviticus. So the roots of our moral (Common) law derive from the Bible. Imagine my surprise while looking through the Bible after studying law, and finding the roots of all of our Common Law in the Bible. Such as the following, from Chapter 19 of Deuteronomy, which defines the difference between manslaughter (2 through 6) and murder (10 through 12), with the determining factor as "intent" just as it is on the books today. And the requirement of more than one witness (15 through 18). This is not by any definition "trivial" or "infantile", and describes murder, manslaughter, and perjury in the same way that it is determined today -- thousands of years later. After I realized the connection of our Common Laws to the Bible, I learned that I am not the first to do so. I know that there is at least one book available, "Gifts of the Jews" that also notes these connections. A question; if religion is not required in order to understand morality, then why is it that we can not determine the moral rightness of "right to die", abortion, the mentally handicapped, or even what to do when a baby is born so deformed that there is no hope for a life? These things are not addressed in the Books of Law. G

continued. . . Defining truth and wisdom will allow one to consider all of the different types of philosophers that exist as they study many different kinds of truths, different kinds of wisdoms. So I think that being a philosopher is a subjective thing, as one can not be trained to "love" something, or forced to "love" something -- love is subjective. This is why it is so difficult to come up with a definition that is objective. We can identify many of the accomplishments of a philosopher, but we can not define what makes those accomplishments happen. Why does someone become a philosopher? What are the drives and tools that must exist in the making of a philosopher? We don't know. I think that the drives and tools are innate, that we are born with natural talents and desires regarding truth and wisdom, but also with a certain ability to recognize truths/wisdoms. This inability to define is not just a problem with philosophy; it is the same with musicians and artists, or any group that has natural innate abilities. We say that someone is an artist if their art has been sold and acknowledged to be art by the "experts", but in reality many people are artists, but do not work in that field. The same can be said of musicians. I knew a young woman who had a voice like an angel. I could listen to her sing all day long. In Junior High School, her chorus instructor measured her singing ability and stated that she could clearly and accurately sing all of the notes through two octaves -- she had an amazing range. When she entered High School, they sponsored a talent competition and she sang the Beatles song, Hey Jude, for this event. Now most singers will not even attempt the song, Hey Jude, because it is just too difficult -- but she got a standing ovation for her rendition. She had a tremendous range, unbelievable power coming out of such a little girl, and a beautiful voice. So you might ask, "Where can I see her, or buy her CDs?" You can't because she is not a singer. She is a manager in a small town store, as that is what she defines herself as -- a manager. But anyone hearing her voice would objectively define her as a singer, and a very good one. So I think that philosophers, like musicians and artists, must first possess a natural talent, but also have the desire and drive that matches that talent in order to become philosophers, musicians, and artists. Without the talent, desire, and drive, it won't happen. It is subjective and can not really be taught, but is objectively recognized. imo G

Tar; Please consider and respond; Since Cladking and I study different things and often disagree, I don't understand where you got this idea. I respect Cladking, but our thinking is very different. Are you interpretting me again, instead of reading what I state? Please show me where I threw you out of the "club". I will require a quote here -- not an interpretation. I don't understand your position here. It looks like you are saying that there can not be a definition for a philosopher. Please show me where I made this accusation. I will require a direct quote -- not your interpretation. So if a man was walking in the woods and came upon a mother bear and her baby, she could not possibly know the "truth" that he could be dangerous to her young, and she could not possibly see the "logic" in chasing him out of the woods. So he would be safe. Good thing that truth and logic are not innate; otherwise, he would be getting a direct message delivered to his "senses". The "society of judges" would be the "good old boys" sitting on their front porch laughing their asses off at him, while he runs from the bear? You may be right. I am sure that he would soon develop a philosophy about walking in the woods around bears. Villain; Of course, you are correct. This is not the first thread that tried to define what a philosopher is, and the other threads I've seen led nowhere offering little insight into this question. If you go to Wiki and look up philosopher, one example will tell you that a philosopher is a person who holds a PhD in Philosophy, or teaches Philosophy. But this definition is not accurate or complete. One of the most well-known American Philosophers was Benjamin Franklin, who quit school at the age of ten. He was a self-made man, who never even attended college. Another example of an American Philosopher of world reknown was Will Rogers. He made it all the way to the tenth grade, but was also a cowboy, vaudville actor, and an American Indian -- another self-made man. I am not even sure that he is listed in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) although I am pretty sure that Ben Franklin is listed there. Eleanor Roosevelt was best known as The First Lady, but she was also brilliant and a philosopher. I don't know if any of these people ever even attended a philosophy class. The other way that Wiki defines a philosopher is if other philosophers state that s/he is a philosopher. There is a problem with this definition; if any group of people decided that they are philosophers and call each other philosophers, then everyone is a philosopher. (chuckle chuckle) Not being satisfied with these definitions, I decided to study this question and break it down to it's root, as that is how I work to determine truth. Philosophy is the love of wisdom/truth, so a philosopher is a lover of wisdom/truth. This tells me that a philosopher will hold wisdom/truth as a very high priority, because it is "love" of wisdom/truth, not like, or respect, or admire, or enjoy, but "love". When we love something, it is very important, the most important. The other thing to consider is that "love" in this sense is used as a verb, so this love of wisdom/truth is an act -- a thing being done. So I decided that a philosopher is a person who actively seeks and finds wisdoms/truths and holds them in esteem over other motivations and opportunities. This is just my opinion, but it is what I will go by until I can find something better. So I think that: 1. A person who loves truth/wisdom, loves philosophy. 2. A person who studies philosophy is a student of philosophy. 3. A person who finds truth/wisdom is a philosopher. 4. A person who finds truth/wisdom and explains it so others can also know this truth/wisdom is a notable philosopher. 5. A person who finds truth/wisdom and develops a methodology, that can be taught to others so that we can find our own truths/wisdoms, is a teacher of philosophy -- and a Master Philosopher. There are many Masters. Of course, now one has to decided what relationship truth and wisdom have, and then needs to define truth and wisdom. (chuckle chuckle) G

Hi Guys/Gals; After reviewing this thread, it appears to me that we are becoming more confused about what a philosopher is, rather than becoming more clear on this subject. So please consider my responses to the following: Marshalscienceguy; It almost appears that you are saying that philosophers are not "normal". You also reference "outside the box". Petrushka.googol; You also imply that philosophers are not normal when you talk about their "abhorrance to socially accepted norms", so you also see them as "outside the box". I am not sure if I should feel complimented or insulted by your description of my "fuzzy" neural networks, but I know that reading that sentence made me smile. (chuckle) Cladking; Another reference to "outside the box". So there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that philosophers think outside the box. But how did the thinking get outside? And are you sure that it did "get outside"? Maybe it was always there. Many people who are told that they think outside the box have mentioned that they were not aware that there is a "box" -- I have stated this myself. Which seems more feasible? That some people have a magical ability to take their thinking and relocate it? Or that most people limit their thinking by acceptiing other people's ideas? It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to put thinking into a box, than it woud be to extract it from an unknown box. So I don't think that it is some special thinking ability that causes a philosopher to think outside the box, but rather a very strong sense of wonder and curiosity that causes a philosopher to refuse to limit his/her thinking. Cladking; a few posts back, you mentioned that maybe everyone is a philosopher. I think that you were right. I think that we were all born philosophers, or at least all of use who were born with a proper functioning body. Philosophers are people who observe their world and try to define what is real. Isn't that what babies do? We spend our first years studying our world, the people in our world, and ourselves, trying to determine what is real and how it works. We are full of wonder and curiosity, but eventually this is replaced with acceptance, ambitions, desires and pleasures, and a host of other feelings and ideas. People start to gravitate to other things and build on their unique identity. One of the things that I have noted in people that I identified as philosophers, is their sense of wonder and curiosity -- it is sometimes almost childlike. So I think that one of the things required of a philosopher is the retention of curiosity and wonder. The ability to see things with a fresh eye, or the ability to see things with an unfettered perspective -- without the limits that come from being inside the box, and that we place on our ideas. Dekan; I can see by your rep that you are almost as good at irritating people as I am, , but I had to give you an up vote for the above quote. It is a perfect example of questions that a philosopher would ask. Philosophers have a very sincere and intimate relationship with truth, so when someone makes a statement like, "the universe can't even get two snowflakes to match exactly", I also wonder how they could possibly know. I will grant that there could be a hypothesis regarding this, or even a theory, but how would it be tested? Even if it were possible to prove that the theory was correct, how could we know that it would be valid on other planets? This does not look like truth. Truth is a primary concern of a philosopher, so I suppose that is why philosophers recognize truth and lies more easily, because we are looking for them. I have also noted in forums that some people will more readily recognize truth -- even when they don't agree with it or understand how it could possibly be -- they still recognize the reasoning and logic that explains it. I have met other people in forums who simply can not recognize truth. I once stated that if I tatooed a simple truth on an arrowhead, attached it to the arrow, and shot it into them, they still would not be able to find and recognize a simple truth. But that was a bad temper day. So besides being able to accurately observe, a philosopher needs to have a strong sense of wonder and curiosity, and must have an intimate relationship with truth. G

Tar; Please consider my responses to three of your posts, as follows: Well I can see why it wouldn't, as you have missed the point of my argument. The point was that innate knowledge does exist. I offered instincts as a "proof" that innate knowledge exists. Now I do not want to get into a debate about instincts as that would take us off topic, and as we discussed before, the subject of instincts is being revised on an almost daily basis because of new discoveries. Instincts are generally agreed to be innate. We do not need to be in full agreement on the subject of instincts to prove it's relevance to innate knowledge. Let us take the example of the "fight or flight" instinct, as this is well agreed upon, to consider instincts in relation to innate knowledge. A rabbit will generally flee in the face of danger, but how does it know what is dangerous? And it does know, because if it did not, then it would sit placidly while becoming a tasty snack, or it would run itself frantic at every movement or sound, such as an ant crawling by. Either of these reactions would cause rabbits to become extinct, so rabbits do know what to run from and what to run to -- this is knowledge. So where does this knowledge come from? Either it is innate, or it is taught through language (some kind of communication), or it is learned from experience. Not many people believe that it is taught through language, so we are talking either innate or learned. Some people believe that this is learned knowledge, and they state that the rabbit sees other rabbits being attacked and learns to avoid certain predators. Here is the problem with this theory; in order to learn, the rabbit has to observe another rabbit being attacked, identify with that other rabbit, have an understanding of time that will allow it to see the possibility of this happening in the future to itself, then strategize and plan for an escape from that danger and plot it's survival. We are talking serious thinking here for an animal that is not supposed to have a mind or any knowledge. Consider a fly; a fly will flee just like a rabbit if it tries to get your food and you swat it away, but unlike a rabbit, the fly will return over and over until you finally kill it. The fly does not have the ability to understand that you will kill it, so it repeats the action. If it were as smart as a rabbit, it would simply wait for you to put the left-overs in the garbage and then have it's feast. A fly does not have the ability to learn that we are dangerous. It does not have the ability to use time to it's advantage. It does not have enough innate knowledge to learn these things. imo Regardless of whether one chooses instinct, language, or learning, all require a base of knowledge for that learning/reacting to happen. This means that there is some innate knowledge; innate knowledge does exist. I also doubt that one should refer to philosophy as a "behavior". Although I can see your point, consider: Do you think that a person loved wisdom and became known as a "lover of wisdom", a philosopher? Or do you think a committee got together and decided that we needed a person who loved wisdom, so they searched far and wide to gather all of the wisdom that they could find, then tried to train a person to love it? This is not a "chicken or the egg" question. The philosopher came first. I don't know. What skills would a very good computer programmer need to possess? Because that is what we are talking about here, skills, not memories. Agreed. Why do you say things like this? No one claimed that the OP was the first to think. Kant was a prominent and well regarded philosopher, but you have taken his statements out of context, so I can not be sure of his meaning. Aristotle was also a prominent philosopher, and has been referred to as the Father of Science, and he thought that we could learn the thing in itself. If you take a log and throw it on a fire, it will burn to ash; if you take plastic and put it on a fire, it will melt and probably poison you; if you take metal or rock and put it on a fire, it will retain heat and maybe crack. These are properties of these different things -- what they are in and of themselves. This is what science studies, what things are in and of themselves -- their properties. To assume that a thing must be physical in order to have properties is naive. If you were trying to convince me that you are not a philosopher, the above statements would do it. 1. I never stated that my kind of philosophy is the "only correct kind". It isn't. 2. I have made it clear many times that I have had to change my beliefs in lieu of new information. 3. I never said that you "can't be a philosopher", just that you are not a philosopher like me, as it is clear that you need to work on your powers of observation and accuracy. Accuracy is even more important in philosophy than it is in science -- and it is very important in science. If you want to talk about truth, then start a thread. I broke down truth into six different levels and catagories for my own use, and it would be interesting to get some one else's take on it. I deleted almost all of your third post as it was mute. The only relevant statement is in the above quote. Your entire post was written as a rebuttal to Turionx2's claim that "he 'remembered' being a philosopher at birth", but this is not true. Turionx2 made no such claim. I know this because if that is what the original post claimed, then I would not have asked for this thread to be reopened. I would have read it, decided that it was kind of stupid, and moved on. In the OP, Turionx2 was talking about knowledge, skills, a way of thinking, and the possibility that these things can be innate. He was not talking about memories and did not even mention memories. Memories, false or otherwise, are the nonsense that you and iNow interpreted. This is also why I had to write a rebuttal to that nonsense. Since your entire argument is based on a false premise, your argument is moot. The most important rule in philosophy is that one make ACCURATE observations. If one can not do this, then all philosophy would be based on false premesis, and we would just be a bunch of Chatty Cathy's spewing nonsense. If anyone wished to discuss innate knowledge, types of thinking, what reasoning really is, or even different types of logic, it would be wonderful and on topic. G

Tar; That would seem to be correct. But I was making reasoned philosophical arguments from early childhood, and I did not read any papers regarding how to make a philosophical argument. My friends and siblings used to tell me that I liked to argue, but that never made any sense to me, because I hated confrontation, avoided quarrels, and had a reputation as a person who would literally walk a mile to avoid a conflict. But I loved digging into the root of any issue and looking for the truth in it. I saw this as discussion, maybe heated, but still discussion. By the time I reached my teens, my siblings changed their minds and stated that I liked to analyze everything. I think that was closer to the truth. The reason that I looked up "How to Argue Philosophically" is because most people look to Formal Logic as a way to learn how to address philosophical issues, but Formal Logic does not work. When I first posted at a philosophy forum, I realized that I would have to learn about Formal Logic, so I looked up an on-line site. In the Introduction of that site, it explained that Formal Logic has absolutely nothing to do with truth. It stated that truth can be proven false, and something that is false can be proven true. So I wondered, "What is the point of this?" Heidegger noted that Formal Logic was a "school room tool" that was used by instructors to check the consistency of an argument, but it could not make an argument. Reason is required to make a philosophical argument. So I was looking for a way to help someone, who obviously knew a good deal about Formal Logic and nothing about a philosophical argument. Formal Logic is to a philosophical argument, what talking is to sex. A little of it at the right times and in the right way can enhance the experience, but too much of it is simply a distraction that frustrates the experience. (chuckle) G No. I feel horrid. I have been nauseated ever since I wrote that post. I don't like confrontation, and it is really bad for people with MS. You still do not understand. It is precisely because you used words like "probably" and "likely" that it is not philosophy. If you went into the science part of this forum and you stated that the speed of light was "probably" X, or that the Earth was "likely" to take X amount of time to circle the sun, would that be acceptable? No, because it is not fact. Science deals in facts; philosophy deals in truths -- not probabilities, not likelihoods, not opinions. Try to look at this from a different perspective. Suppose I go to another forum and someone there decides that they are a "natural-born philosopher". So I state that it is very unlikely and probably the result of false memories. So they say, "How do you know that?" Then I respond with, "iNow told me and s/he knows all about it." How far do you think that would fly? If you have studied and know about innate abilities, why are you not sharing the information? I am not suggesting anything. I am looking for your truth. Consider: A. All memories are true. B. All memories are false. C. Memories can be true or false under these specific circumstances. (reason given) Pick one, and if it is C, then give a reason. A reason that can be verified or disputed. Philosophy threads that do not deal in philosophy are of little value to anyone. People will readily understand that science must base it's work on facts -- if the original facts are not valid, then nothing of value will come out of it. But they refuse to understand that philosophy works the same way. If the underlying truths are not valid, then nothing of value will come out of it. Simple truth. G

If I must. But please note that I can find no way to diplomatically state the truth as I see it. Regarding the above quote; all of whom? Are you using the Royal "us", or do you have other people posting with you? Since I doubt that you are royalty and there is no "et al" after your name, I suppose that you are talking about other members. So this is an argument by association? It is true because people think so? Who are these people and what do they think? We have been through this before, but I will explain again. When a person writes a sentence and puts a little question mark after it -- like this (?) -- then it is a query for information; it is not a statement. At no time did I state or think that you were implying that all memories are false. Either you are confused again, or this is another manipulation, or a flat-out lie. Yes. That is what you stated, but that is OPINION. In order for it to be philosophy, you would have to give a reason why Turionx2's memories are "likely?" false memories. Memories can be false; memories can be true; but if your opinion is that Turionx2's memories are false, then you have to have a reason for that opinion -- something that connects the two ideas. Otherwise it is simply innuendo, which means nothing. Here we have more OPINION, which is apparently based on your opinion as no valid reasons are stated. Your opinion may mean a great deal to you, but so far, I am not impressed with it. You have not yet made a logical or philosophical argument. You are apparently confused again. I have no idea of what is in Turionx2's mind or what s/he may or may not believe regarding the above. What? Do you think I'm psychic? (chuckle chuckle) You cut the quote into one third which misrepresents my query. Was this misrepresentation intentional? I studied law, and law has some very exacting rules regarding intent. It is difficult to believe that your mouse "accidentally" selected and clicked on the part of my post that would allow you to misdirect my meaning. So yes, you did it intentionally, and I have no doubt that you "cherry picked" my sentences. You are arguing about a supposed intent of mine that does not exist in order to avoid the real questions regarding your inability to connect Turionx2's memories with the link you provided. My post read; "Why would Turionx2's memories be more "likely" to be false memories? Are you trying to imply that all memories are false? Or do you have some other reason that you have not stated?" Most people would understand that I was trying to find the reasoning that connects your link and Turionx2's memories. The link stated that memories can be false, but it did not state that Turionx2's memories were false, so what was your reasoning? The only thing that you have stated thus far is that the memories were false in order to support a self-identify. Since we ALL have a self-identity, logically that means that all of our memories are "likely?" false. THIS IS NONSENSE. And here we have more OPINION backed up with OPINION based on "probably". Has it occurred to you yet that you "probably" need to learn the difference between opinion and reasoning or opinion and evidence? Nothing that you have stated is even close to philosophy. Philosophy deals in logic, reasoning, evidence, observation, and experience. What I have seen in your posts in this thread are association, opinion, innuendo, misrepresentation, manipulation, and possibly lies. I could not call this philosophy and would have to consider that an opinion and conclusion based on association, opinion, innuendo, misrepresentation, manipulation, and possibly lies, would be called gossip. Gossip is not philosophy. If you would like to learn how to make a philosophical argument, you can Google, "How to Argue Philosophically", and you will find that there are many free sites available. The following is a quick study type of paper from NYU that can be reviewed in short order. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html This is a more in depth paper from the on-line Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy written by a representative of Michigan State University. http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/ Please review at least one of these before responding to this post, and try to get back on topic. G

Tar; I owe Cladking a post, but needed to address some of the ideas in your post first, as I suspect that you are not clear on what a philosopher actually is. It may well "take one to know one", which would be why I would never mistake you for a philosopher like me. But there is more than one kind of philosophy and more than one kind of philosopher. All philosophers seek truth, but truth relative to what? This is where the difference comes in, in the "what". I have read in this forum a post that stated that philosophy is the "art of thinking". So that would make a sucessful bank robber a philosopher, as it takes a lot of thinking to be good at that. So crooks and con-men, politicians and lawyers are all philosophers? Do we really want to limit the definition of philosophy to thinking? What about truth and wisdom? The above paragraph is the kind of nonsense that comes with equating philosophy with thinking. All thought is not philosophy; all ideas are not philosophy; and whether or not something "works" has absolutely nothing to do with truth. I could use a wig to dust my furniture, and it would work, but it would still be a wig -- not a dust rag. Science is a branch of philosophy, so it studies the truth of things; what they are in and of themselves. Technology is a product of science. Art, poetry, music, and dance are expressions of emotion. Law and order are social constructs built on moral ideas mostly from religion. You can philosophize about anything that you want, but that does not make everything philosophy. This paragraph exemplifies our biggest differences. You seem to think that philosophy only has value if you can see some way that it contributes to your world. I don't agree. In all of our discussions you have related the subject matter to you, your family, your culture, your society, your country, your world. You see all of it through a human perspective. To my mind, this human perspective can corrupt the truth of the thing in itself, so I do not see it as philosophy. Science studies things, and works hard to limit our perspective of those things so as not to corrupt the studies. Religion studies things in relation to humans, and even goes so far as to anthropomorphize God in order to keep with this human perspective. Your philosophy seems more aligned with religious philosophy than with scientific philosophy or straight philosophy. Philosophy studies what something is, the truth of it, in and of itself -- no matter the value. Since you are now quoting iNow, I can see that I will have to address iNow's last post to me. Where did you get the idiotic idea that philosophers were, or thought they were "superior"? Truth is not required to "fit". It is only required to be or not to be. G

Cladking; Hi. I apologize for taking so long to respond to your posts, but MS (Multiple Sclerosis) has been kicking my butt lately. Not yet sure if this is a "relapsing, remitting" thing, or if it is a permanent reduction of my strengths and abilities, but you will have to be patient with me. I will know which it is by Spring. Please note that I always read your responses to me, and I am thinking about them. My responses may be slower, but I hope to at least make them in the same year as yours in the future. (chuckle) While I agree with the large majority of what you are stating here, I don't think that children should learn that their teachers can be quite stupid. This information did not serve me well. What I had learned was that I could not trust my teachers, and it took a few really good teachers and many years before I finally acquired the experience, knowledge, and judgement to know where to place my trust. Chidren need to be able to trust the people, who are teaching them. I believe that the problem comes from the way we view children. With all of this nature v nurture nonsense, we have come to think of children as empty little boxes that need to be filled up. We need to put the ideas into their heads that we value, so this is what our education system tries to do. I watched a video on education in this country, and it likened education to manufacturing, and explained that what we are doing is very much like "processing" children to turn them into good little citizens. The problem with this "processing" is that it is not flexible enough to accommodate natural talents and abilities. And if we are going to be honest, we must admit that thinking is disruptive to a process. When people think, they get ideas, and then questions regarding those ideas, which they expect the teacher to answer. Teachers, on the other hand, are trying to put ideas into those little heads, rather than listening to what comes out of those little heads. I have no doubt in my mind, that if the argument that I made at eight years old, was instead made by an adult, the teacher would have listened. Children are people too, just very small people. Children need to be allowed to think and encouraged to learn the differences between truth, fact, opinion, and perspective. Agreed. Cladking, I need your help. A while back, I recognized you as being another philosopher and have been thinking about that. What is it that I think I recognize? I am not sure. I have been to many forums and find that I will read a post and think, that person is a philosopher; then read another post and think, that person never was and never will be a philosopher. What is it that I am seeing? There seems to be no pattern regarding intelligence, education, the ability to articulate their ideas, or even whether or not I agree with their ideas. Some are bright, others not very bright; some educated, others in need of learning; some articulate, others that I really want to help them explain their ideas. So what is the common thread, or threads, that says this person is a philosopher. Do you have any thoughts on this? I think I was seven when I knew. I was sitting on the floor at my Mother's feet while she told stories of King Solomon. If I had been younger than four, I would have been in her lap (and would probably not have remembered), and if I had been as old as nine, the conversation would have taken place at the table -- so seven is about right. She told the stories about the babe that was ordered to be cut in half, and the two young men, who could not divide the property that they had inherited. When she was done, I stated, "That is what I want to be; wise like King Solomon." (Haven't got there yet.) My siblings also heard the stories, but they were not enthralled by them. I was. To my mind, a man who could pull truth out of lies, was more fascinating than a magician. This man could find truth, expose it, and everyone hearing the story would have no doubt that it was truth. This was a man to be admired, and I wanted to learn how to find truth -- because I was already in love with it. Philosophy is love of wisdom -- love of truth. G

Hello Dekan; To answer your question first, the reason that these other subjects are in a Science forum is because science is a branch of philosophy. Religion is also a branch of philosophy. Since all forms of government are based on either a religious belief or a philosophical idea, politics becomes part of this study. As to your first comment, please note that philosophy is a study of the unknown, which means that everyone can have an opinion. Unfortunately many people have decided that attack and debate is a good way to find the truth of an unknown. I do not agree. But if you review this thread again, I think that you will find that very few people actually answered the question posed in the OP. Most people decided to attack the validity of even asking the question, and at least on person went completely off topic by asking why a philosophy forum was situated in a science site. So it is my thought that a serious lack of respect for philosophy, philosophical discussion, and the original poster, is the cause of people wanting to "kick each other". G

Hello EdEarl; Nice to talk to you again. But we are. I know that this issue is hotly debated, but it is difficult for me to see it any other way. How could we possibly understand that 1 + 1 = 2, if we did not first know and understand the concept of more and less? This is something that the Ancients debated, and it is clear that ideas are built upon ideas, knowledge upon knowledge, so there has to be some base for knowledge to build upon. The concept of more and less, or greater and lesser, has to be innate, and this is not limited to humans. Consider a small fish in a tank; if you drop something very small into the tank, the fish will dart to it to see if it is edible, but if you drop something larger than the fish into the tank, the fish will dart away to protect itself. This implies that even a fish can possess knowledge of greater and lesser. A lot of people may say that this is just an example of instinct, but what is instinct? Instinct is just a knowledge of something that is good or bad for that life form, and that life form's reaction to that knowledge. So instinct, in order to be effective, requires some knowledge. No one is debating whether or not instinct is innate, so that means that the knowledge is also innate. Most of the debate around the nature v nurture concept is derived from people like Descartes, who stated that "God" was the source of innate knowledge. So the debate is really a religion v science issue, which is not relevant to the truth of the matter. You can learn more about it in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_idea We are also very attracted to faces. It does not matter if it is a real face, a stuffed animal face, or a "happy face" drawn on paper, as they all will draw a baby's attention. This is considered to be an instinctive reaction that many social animals share, but it also denotes a certain knowledge of a face. I agree with you here, but this is also where it gets interesting. Why is it that different people, who are exposed to the same information, will pick up different knowledge? My Mother loved wisdom and often quoted the old adages (wisdoms) to us, but I am the only philosopher in my family. Why? One might think that her love of wisdom would have made all of us philosophers, but it did not. My eldest sibling is a strategist and sculptor, the next is a very social traditionalist and artist, another is an engineer and mechanic that can write poetry and play musical instruments. I am the philosopher, teacher, and writer. We are all very different. Even identical twins raised in the same household seem to be very different in their interests and personalities. It is probably this very difference that is often noted between twins that started the superstition that twins were each half of one soul. So there is more than just exposure to experience and teaching that causes us to be different. Here is a story that might explain what I mean. Years ago, I was with my grandchildren, and my grand-daughter was doing homework. She had to write a short story and then draw a picture of it. Her story was about little animals that lived by a waterfall, but she was having trouble drawing a water fall and asked for my help. So I tried to draw a water fall, first from the front view (which looked like an ugly curtain) then from a side view (which was worse, believe it or not). I could not figure out how to draw it, so I asked her big brother to help as he is the family artist. He was about nine years old at the time. He thought about it, then drew a beautiful picture of a water fall in less than two minutes. I asked him if he had drawn a water fall before, and he said, "No. But it is not that hard." Later that night, I studied his picture in order to discern what he had seemed to instinctively know, that I did not know. What I learned was that he did not draw the water. He drew the container. He drew the cliff that the water fell from and the pool that surrounded the water after it landed, he did not actually draw the water. After considering this for a while, I realized that if I wanted to draw a cup of water, I would make it a glass that can be seen through, and then draw a line that indicates the water's level. I would not draw the water. I am not even sure if a person can draw water. We can paint water, or draw a container for it, and we can draw the motion of water like waves, but can we actually draw water? And how did a nine year old boy know this? Would this be an example of a natural-born artist? If I spent years in art school, would I become an artist? Somehow, I don't think so. I would definitely improve my skills, but I would only be able to understand what I was taught and would lack that certain something that makes one an artist. There are natural-born leaders, natural-born teachers, artists, musicians, managers, and healers. Is there some rule that says there can not be natural-born philosophers? I have met many people in philosophy forums that know more about philosophy than I will ever learn, but like my Mother, they are not philosophers. They are people who love philosophy, and I refer to them as students of philosophy, but they are not philosophers. G

Nonsense. In post # 7 (below), what you did was iterate and expound upon your asserted opinions from your first post in this thread. You clarified nothing with regard to connecting Turienx2's memories and your opinion that these memories are likely false. In order to clarify, you would have to provide a reasonable logic or evidence that supports your assertion. The reasoned "preconceptions" regarding Turienx2's "self-identify" are nonsense as you have no ability to know Turienx2's subjective mind. I will grant that it is possible to extract reams of information from a few sentences -- I do it myself -- but even I can not extract enough information from the few sentences in the OP to tell whether or not that subjective mind holds valid or invalid memories. Ideas come from somewhere, so if you can not come up with some reasoned explanation, then I will just have to assume that you are projecting your own thoughts on Turienx2. Which would imply that you are the person who continues "to reinforce merely because it aligns with your preconceptions and preferred narrative". G

Hello Members; I asked that this thread be reopened because I find it interesting and can relate to the OP. Of course, I won't be able to talk to Turionx2 because that Member has been banned, but it should be noted that others do share the opinion that the art of thinking that we call philosophy can be, and maybe is, innate. My first memory of making a reasoned and logical argument was when I was eight years old. Although I no doubt made other arguments, this one stands out in my mind because it was horribly embarrassing. It was with a teacher, and of course I lost the argument because I had no authority -- not because I was wrong. It was a life changing event that taught me a very bad lesson, that teachers could be quite stupid. Not something that we generally want an eight year old to learn. EdEarl; Although I agree with most of your post, I would caution you with regard to the words "exceptional gifts". Being born with the ability to think like a philosopher, does not necessarily translate to being born to think like an "exceptional" philosopher. We all have different talents and innate abilities, but they are also at different levels, so I don't think that this is what the OP implied. INow; This looks like nonsense. Why would Turionx2's memories be more "likely" to be false memories? Are you trying to imply that all memories are false? Or do you have some other reason that you have not stated? Imatfaal; Please note that "critical legal theory" and philosophy are not the same thing. I would also like to suggest that your statement "very few people came pre-equipped with critical thinking skills" is somewhat supportive of the idea that philosophical thinking might just be innate. John Cuthber; We are all taught about logic in the second grade when we study math, so by your suggestion, everyone should be logical. They are not. G

Kristalris; Hi. I have been following this thread for some time now, and although I do not know anything about mathmatics, I do see a problem that I hope to explain. When I read Swansont's post that stated that you keep moving the "goalposts", I identified with it, because that is exactly how I felt when in discussion with you in the prior thread. It amazed me to learn how many members are exceptional in mathmatics, and I do not wish to dispute their findings or arguments, but I suspect that your problem with them lies more in your premises than in your math. Reading your posts makes me think that you do not see a difference between truth, facts, statistics, and mathmatics. You seem to treat them as essentially the same thing; and therefore, interchangable. They are not. It would help me, if no one else, if you could explain how you think they are different, and under what circumstance(s) they are interchangable. G

Hoola; Nicola Tesla was an inventer, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and a physicist. Since the AC motor is based on science, we can rightly assume that his training in science is what enabled him to imagine the AC motor and cause it to be possible. Please note that he did not imagine "flying pigs" and enable them to be possible. This is a science forum. So it is not difficult for a clear thinking person to understand that the point of this thread is that "imagination" on it's own does not make things possible. Science is required. But I agree with you about the "advertising industry" as most people would rather imagine than think. G

Kristalris; I don't know much about math and nothing about the Bayesian Machine except what I have learned here, but I am pretty good at language. So I am having some problems with your underlined words above. "Assumed absolute truths" are what religion uses to argue that "God" exists. I have read some very good logical arguments based on the "assumed" truth that "God" is real, so I know that logic can be used to infer something that is not real when based on assumed absolute truths. Last time I checked, science bases it's knowledge on facts, and only assumes that those facts are valid because they have been proven, so they will be accepted until proven otherwise. If I am wrong here, I am sure that someone will correct me. It looks to me as though you are still applying logic to guesses and imagination. G

Debrule 1: You have considered some interesting ideas, but I doubt that you will get much discussion on them here. Your idea of relating consciousness to computers and the internet is very much like Daniel Dennet's explanation in his book, Consciousness Explained. I have not read Dennet's book, but you might find it interesting, and it may even answer some of your questions. Philosophers have long studied the concept of consciousness, and tried to determine if it comes to us or from us and whether or not it is universal. But there are very few people here, at this forum, who understand philosophy, so you will not get your discussion here. If you send me a PM, I will be happy to recommend some Philosophy forums that may better suit your purposes. Regarding the supernatural; religion picks and chooses which "supernatural" that it wants to recognize, modern philosophy seems to be scared of it, and science won't even acknowledge it, so be careful to not fling this word around. (chuckle) G

Kristalris; Per the underlined above, who or what dictates which data is "relevant"? Because if you choose which data is relevant, then it is your opinion/judgment of that data that causes a circular and self-supporting evidence. Would that be imagination? Or would that be reality? G