NB: Apart from a couple of posts where I directly quote AI to enable me to address and argue against what it says, AI has not otherwise been used in any shape or form in either this blog nor my "Philosophical Thoughts" blog.
Monday, 21 December 2020
I'd like to move to Cornwall
Friday, 11 December 2020
Futile Exchanges
The thing about getting into arguments with people -- at least on the net -- is that no one ever budges an inch. Whether politics, metaphysics, or whatever other topic, no one ever says "you've got a good point there". Or "yes, that is something I hadn't considered" etc.
I'm not sure if I'm like that too. I certainly am with metaphysics, the mind-body problem, free will, philosophy of science and certain other philosophical issues. Scarcely anyone seems to have a faintest clue what they're talking about on such topics, and this definitely includes prominent scientists. I, on the other hand, have thought about these issues constantly for many many years.
Politics, I'm far less sure about and I like to think that I'm amenable to differing views. But, even here not much substantive ever seems to be said.
Also see my Arguing with People.
Thursday, 3 December 2020
An Invisible Man in the Sky
“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”Tell people there's an invisible consciousness in peoples' bodies who created iphones and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.
George Carlin
Ian Wardell
Wednesday, 2 December 2020
Mobiles are frustrating
Unlike seemingly the vast majority of people, I've rarely used mobiles. But for the past few days I've had to rely upon one to communicate with people, and I find them extremely frustrating to use.
For one thing, why won't it reliably ring out when someone calls me? I know I get a call as my PC is linked to my phone and a message pops up on the screen saying I missed a call! Pressing this button on the mobile seemed to solve the problem, at least temporarily. But now it's doing it again.
And sometimes when I ring people it says I'm not allowed to ring them, or something. Only for it to work the next time I try calling them.
And them sometimes people cut out in the middle of the call, only for them to re-appear and be seemingly unaware that I couldn't hear them.
Oh yes, and unlike on a landline (which I normally use all the time), I keep speaking over people on mobiles. Must be because peoples' voices are slightly delayed.
Another thing, unless I terminate the bluetooth connection to my PC, peoples' voices come out of the speakers. Am I still supposed to speak into the microphone on my mobile, or the microphone I use with my PC? I don't know.
I imagine it's simply a question of getting used to them, but for the moment I find them frustrating.
Wednesday, 11 November 2020
Do I have the virus? Maybe.
This is now the 4th day since I was in close contact with someone who has the virus (sitting next to in a car). I read that the 4th and 5th days after the initial contact are the most likely days to experience the first symptoms. I await in trepidation!
So, 9 months of avoiding people and the very first person I'm forced to interact with at close quarters gets ill the very next day and transpires to have the virus.
I might as well have enjoyed myself and attended covid 19 parties with wild abandon!
I feel like that main character in the Truman Show.
29/11/20 Edited to add: Now 3 weeks and 1 day since the contact. No symptoms, so either I didn't get it or I was asymptomatic.
Thursday, 5 November 2020
Happiness Sappers
Edited to add: And yes, I am well aware all you aliens out there will take me seriously when I say "makes me wonder".
Thursday, 22 October 2020
Souls are real but are not things?
I've just read the following piece by Vance Morgan a philosophy professor.
The Soul is Not a Thing, but it Most Certainly is Real
Not sure what it means to say the soul is not a thing but that it nevertheless exists. And he doesn't explain what he means. It's not a material thing, no. But if a soul is our essence, if it is that which makes us the very same person throughout our lives, then why is it not an immaterial thing?
But anyway, the author says:
[S]cience tells us that everything about us, including our consciousness and all that it entails, is at least in principle reducible to the operations of our physical bodies.
And he also says:
[S]cience has told us for a long time that everything that human beings have traditionally thought that we needed an immaterial “something else” to explain—our thoughts, consciousness, emotions, and so on—is rooted in brain activity.
This is complete nonsense, science tells us no such thing. Or, if he thinks otherwise, he is required to specify what this research is that suggests this.
He also says:
[A]s a philosophy professor who, at least in my own understanding of my job description, am there to ask difficult questions, challenge embedded assumptions, and generally blow my students’ minds. For instance, does the notion “non-physical thing” even make sense, since all of our experience of “things that exist” are rooted in stuff made of matter?So this seems to be suggesting that only things that can be cashed out in terms of our sensory experiences -- i.e only what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste -- can be said to exist.
The first point to make is, why think that? Why do minds, or consciousness, have to be directly perceived in order to exist? No-one ever sees my mind, nor my experiences. Others can only infer what I experience from what I say or from my behaviour, but they do not perceive it. Should we follow the author on this and conclude that the existence of my mind or experiences do not exist? That would result in each and every person concluding no-one else exists in the world apart from themselves! And maybe not even themselves since we do not perceive through our senses our own consciousness or minds. We are just simply directly acquainted with our own consciousness.
Tuesday, 20 October 2020
A review of the Fire HD 10 Tablet
Tuesday, 13 October 2020
Yet more on Covid
Just read the following article:
Boris Johnson’s latest Covid strategy: no hope and no end in sight
Article says:
However, shortly afterwards documents were released showing that Sage had advised the government three weeks ago to bring in five measures including a short “circuit breaker” lockdown, or else face a “very large epidemic”.
The official documents dated 21 September also called for a ban on household mixing in homes; the closure of all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms and services such as hairdressers; and all university and college teaching to be online “unless absolutely essential”.
So all this was significantly watered down.
Inevitable the growth R will increase when relaxing lockdown measures. Hence, if R is only marginally below 1, it is inadvisable to relax all the lockdown measures since this will likely increase the R rate to above 1. It was especially foolish allowing students to go to University as people from all over the country are mixing together there.
R needs to be substantially below 1 before reverting back to normal life and this needs to be applied to all the different regions of the country. Alternatively, we can let the virus rip through most of the population, but try to keep the vulnerable isolated.
But the choice has to be made. The Government appears to have opted for the former. But why on earth wasn't the advice from Sage followed? Allowing R to get above 1 can be calamitous since this is exponential growth we're talking about here. Sorry, but I regard the Government -- and especially Boris Johnson -- as utterly incompetent, at least at handling a pandemic.
I wrote about the virus way back in March on my other blog here. And on this blog both here and here.
Saturday, 10 October 2020
Sabine Hossenfelder and her denial of Free Will
I find it exasperating that scientists continually pontificate on philosophical issues such as whether there's free will, whether there's an afterlife etc, when they simply do not have the appropriate expertise.
"[Free will] never made sense in the first place. You see that thing you call "free will" should in some sense allow you to choose what you want. But then it's either determined by what you want, in which case it's not free, or it's not determined, in which case it's not a will."
Determined by what we want... In other words, we have the innate capacity within us to act on our wants, to choose in other words. But this is precisely what is meant by free will! If we have the power to choose as we please, if we are not constrained to act in a specific manner by physical laws or by physical chains of causes and effects, then this is what is meant by free will.
One last point. She says:
"If you want to define free will in such a way that it is still consistent with the laws of nature, that is fine by me, though I will continue to complain that's just verbal acrobatics."
But no verbal acrobatics are required. We do what we want, what we choose, and the laws of nature, as applied to us, are a simple description of that freely chosen behaviour. Of course, she might complain that only the 4 fundamental forces have any genuine causal agency, but this is both to assume reductive materialism and that these forces do indeed have genuine causal agency. But physics merely describes the world. Assigning innate powers to electrons etc is a metaphysical position. Free will is a metaphysical position too (as is its denial), but at least in our own case we are immediately and directly acquainted with our own causal agency.
I have written an essay on the issue of free will in the below link
http://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-causal-consciousness-free-will-and.html
The nature of morality
From here, or here (to bypass paywall). What actually drives these conflicts is a more fundamental difference in moral philosophy: moral a...
-
An interesting article about thought experiments here . People do tend to ignore thought experiments. I get the strong impression that they ...
-
Someone on twitter/X asked the following question: A mathematician emerges from a cave, hands you the photo below, and asks "Will a c...
-
From here : 1. "If it’s a phenomena (and not just an event), it will or can be repeated". Depends what the author means by ...
-
I recently read the following article: What the Buddha Didn't Teach About Reincarnation It says: "This is not to say that “we” ...
-
Someone said in a comment under a Guardian article: My solution to this problem is somewhat simplistic. I don't do social media. As in...
-
The Wikipedia page on Lucy Letby First of all, let me say at the outset that I'm really loath to comment on whether I think she's gu...
-
There's 2 possibilities: a) This is the only life there is. When we die we simply cease to exist. Our lives and the Universe are, in a...
-
Woody Allen has said : I firmly believe ... that life is meaningless. I’m not alone in thinking this — there have been many great minds far...
-
According to this article Greenland is the country with the world's highest suicide rate. From 1900-1930 Greenland had a suicide rate ...
-
Below on the left is a photo of me taken back in 1985. I uploaded that photo to ChatGPT and said to it "Generate an image of what this ...