LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby redwill on Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:53 pm

Rylan wrote:Calm down guys, no point in becoming irate about any of this.


No irateness here, brother. I've only been called an "arrogant *******" once in this thread.

Par for the course for me. I'm good.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,095
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Rylan on Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:02 pm

Who said I was singling you out you pompous ass? :slug:
Rylan
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,099
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:07 pm
Location: Dead and Without Love

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby columbia on Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:04 pm

Image
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 49,492
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
Location: If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu.

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Grunthy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:12 pm

Image
Grunthy
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,465
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:08 pm

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Godric on Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:59 pm

Mine is bigger
Godric
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,240
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Switch the style up and if they hate, let em hate and watch the money pile up

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby redwill on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:16 pm

Godric wrote:Mine is bigger


The Supreme Court disagreed with this in 1901.

Deal with it.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,095
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Grunthy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:42 pm

redwill wrote:
Godric wrote:Mine is bigger


The Supreme Court disagreed with this in 1901.

Deal with it.



Actually with mines it was earlier.

U.S. Supreme Court
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888)
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining and Milling Company v. Pennsylvania
No. 189
Argued February 16, 1888
Decided March 19, 1888
125 U.S. 181


:wink: :slug:
Grunthy
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,465
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:08 pm

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Shyster on Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:39 pm

redwill wrote:I get it that you don't like uppity atheists. Do you have any comment about what I said?

I am neither a Christian nor religious, but even I am mildly insulted by the comparison of the Ten Commandments to anti-Jew laws or black codes.

We obviously differ on the interpretation of the First Amendment. Based on the text of the amendment and its historical interpretation, I do not believe the Establishment Clause requires the ejection of anything and everything carrying religious meaning from public property or a public space, particularly something that carries as much historical meaning as the Ten Commandments.

Finally, I must say that of all of the things the government is doing that could arguably be in violation of the Constitution or individual constitutional rights, the presence of the Ten Commandments on public property is so far down my list as to be pretty much meaningless to me. IMO, there are much bigger fish to fry.
Shyster
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,466
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Here and there

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby PensFanInDC on Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:11 pm

Like halibut. Man....I love halibut
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 26,020
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Hockeynut! on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:04 am

Bumping an old thread, but...

Does anyone ever just feel like checking out of the "traditional" (for lack of a better word) world? I've always been a loner but lately the idea of just chucking everything and starting over somewhere with a big amount a ground, an isolated cabin and a lot of solitude is sounding more and more appealing. I've take a few vacations the last year where I rented a cabin in the mountain and just holed up there for a few days and it was pretty amazing. Obviously I can't do it right now because I have bills to pay, a business to run, etc. but as someone who isn't married and has no children, it would be do-able eventually. I'm not anti-social, I like people for the most part, but I love solitude. Is it weird to think this way?
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby redwill on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:09 am

Not at all.

Spoiler:
Image
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,095
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby columbia on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:11 am

You need to re-read The Shining, before deciding to proceed.

I would definitely do it in mountain area. I don't see the point of moving out to the country and having a road 50 feet from your house.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 49,492
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
Location: If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu.

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Hockeynut! on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:18 am

columbia wrote:You need to re-read The Shining, before deciding to proceed.

I would definitely do it in mountain area. I don't see the point of moving out to the country and having a road 50 feet from your house.


:lol: I would try to avoid a haunted hotel.

And yeah, I absolutely love the mountains. I've been looking at ground in Maine off an on for a few years. There are spots where you can get 10+ acres for less than $1K an acre. I'm sure it's the same out west. I pretty much live in the country now, but I sometimes I crave more privacy. I don't want to go fully off the grid (I like my computer, internet and TV too much for that), but the solitude is so appealing.
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Kraftster on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:20 am

I think about that frequently. I am quite happy, but I think about all kinds of different lives that I want to experience but will not be able to because of the limits of a single lifetime. It's a real bummer.
Kraftster
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,260
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Frolik

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby PensFanInDC on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:23 am

Hockeynut! wrote:Bumping an old thread, but...

Does anyone ever just feel like checking out of the "traditional" (for lack of a better word) world? I've always been a loner but lately the idea of just chucking everything and starting over somewhere with a big amount a ground, an isolated cabin and a lot of solitude is sounding more and more appealing. I've take a few vacations the last year where I rented a cabin in the mountain and just holed up there for a few days and it was pretty amazing. Obviously I can't do it right now because I have bills to pay, a business to run, etc. but as someone who isn't married and has no children, it would be do-able eventually. I'm not anti-social, I like people for the most part, but I love solitude. Is it weird to think this way?


Like you said, if I was single and childless I would probably aim for this. Heck, if my wife and child died in some accident I would take the insurance money and disappear to a cabin in the woods tomorrow.

If I won the lottery I would spend a year or two getting into impeccable physical shape, and learning all I can about wilderness survival, first aid, and living off the grid.
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 26,020
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Troy Loney on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:29 am

I don't think I'm self sufficient enough for that kind of life.
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,294
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Hockeynut! on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:29 am

I'm glad I'm not crazy. ;)

Right now I'm supporting my parents so I have to be responsible as long as they're around. But after that... I don't know. I really feel like I could distance myself from society pretty easily and not miss very much.

I was just browsing ebay and came across this. 50 acres for 15K. If it wasn't the whole way across the country I'd be tempted to buy it right now.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/50-ACRE-NEVADA- ... 58ab74726a
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby shmenguin on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:43 am

i couldn't do it if i hadn't already experienced marriage and fatherhood. but if something happened to my wife and kid(s), i'd consider it. i need my wife and daughter in my life, but i don't need "people".
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 23,720
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:34 pm

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Troy Loney on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:44 am

I would have to have some real serious artistic or intellectual venture to be able to sustain that sort of existence.
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,294
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby PensFanInDC on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:47 am

Troy Loney wrote:I would have to have some real serious artistic or intellectual venture to be able to sustain that sort of existence.


I'm a musician so admittedly that makes it easier.
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 26,020
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Hockeynut! on Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:53 am

And I'm a writer and photographer, so that would definitely pass time.
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,453
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 am

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby Kraftster on Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:41 am

Is Atheism Irrational?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... inion&_r=0

I had a pretty hard time with making sense of much of this guy's arguments. This one was especially difficult:

GG: Especially among today's atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there's nothing benyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there's no place for immaterial beings such as God.

AP: Well, if there are only material entites, then atheism certainly follows. But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can't be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution.

GG: Why is that?

AP: I can't give a complete statement of the argument here -- for that see Chapter 10 of "Where the Conflict Really Lies." But, roughly, here's why. First, if materialism is true, human beings, naturally enough, are material objects. Now what, from this point of view, would a belief be? My belief that Marcel Proust is more subtle than Louis L'Amour, for example? Presumably this believe would have to be a material structure in my brain, say a collection of neurons that sends electrical impulses to other such structures as well as to nerves and muscles, and receives electrical impulses from other structures.
But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content: It would have, say, to be the belief that Proust is more subtle than L'Amour.

GG: So is your suggestion that a neurophysiological structure can't be a belief? That a believe has to be somehow immaterial?

AP: That may be, but it's not my point here. I'm interested in the fact that beliefs cause (or at least partly cause) actions. For example, my belief that there is a beer in the fridge (together with my desire to have a beer) can cause me to heave myself out of my comfortable armchair and lumber over to the fridge.
But here's the important point: It's by virtue of its material, neurophysiological properties that a belief causes the action. It's in virtue of those electrical signals sent via efferent nerves to the relevant muscles, that the belief about the beer in the fridge causes me to go to the fridge. It is not by virtue of the content (that there is a beer in the fridge) the belief has.

GG: Why do you say that?

AP: Because if this belief -- this structure -- had a totally different content (even, say, if it was a belief that there is no beer in the fridge) but had the same neurophysiological properties, it would still have caused that same action of going to the fridge. This means that the content of the belief isn't a cause of the behavior. As far as causing the behavior goes, the content of the belief doesn't matter.
Kraftster
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,260
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Frolik

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby columbia on Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:13 pm

I'd say that there are many, many non-material aspects to being a human being, that have nothing to do with faith/belief/religion.

Also, I'm a terrible consumer, which is to say, I rarely buy anything beyond what I eat and drink. :)
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 49,492
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:13 pm
Location: If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu.

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby redwill on Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Kraftster wrote:Is Atheism Irrational?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... inion&_r=0

I had a pretty hard time with making sense of much of this guy's arguments. This one was especially difficult:

GG: Especially among today's atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there's nothing benyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there's no place for immaterial beings such as God.

AP: Well, if there are only material entites, then atheism certainly follows. But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can't be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution.

GG: Why is that?

AP: I can't give a complete statement of the argument here -- for that see Chapter 10 of "Where the Conflict Really Lies." But, roughly, here's why. First, if materialism is true, human beings, naturally enough, are material objects. Now what, from this point of view, would a belief be? My belief that Marcel Proust is more subtle than Louis L'Amour, for example? Presumably this believe would have to be a material structure in my brain, say a collection of neurons that sends electrical impulses to other such structures as well as to nerves and muscles, and receives electrical impulses from other structures.
But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content: It would have, say, to be the belief that Proust is more subtle than L'Amour.

GG: So is your suggestion that a neurophysiological structure can't be a belief? That a believe has to be somehow immaterial?

AP: That may be, but it's not my point here. I'm interested in the fact that beliefs cause (or at least partly cause) actions. For example, my belief that there is a beer in the fridge (together with my desire to have a beer) can cause me to heave myself out of my comfortable armchair and lumber over to the fridge.
But here's the important point: It's by virtue of its material, neurophysiological properties that a belief causes the action. It's in virtue of those electrical signals sent via efferent nerves to the relevant muscles, that the belief about the beer in the fridge causes me to go to the fridge. It is not by virtue of the content (that there is a beer in the fridge) the belief has.

GG: Why do you say that?

AP: Because if this belief -- this structure -- had a totally different content (even, say, if it was a belief that there is no beer in the fridge) but had the same neurophysiological properties, it would still have caused that same action of going to the fridge. This means that the content of the belief isn't a cause of the behavior. As far as causing the behavior goes, the content of the belief doesn't matter.


It seems to me that his argument breaks down at this point:

But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content: It would have, say, to be the belief that Proust is more subtle than L'Amour.


He seems to be simply declaring that the content of a belief is different than the neurophysiology of the belief. Seems like he's begging the question.

AP: Because if this belief -- this structure -- had a totally different content (even, say, if it was a belief that there is no beer in the fridge) but had the same neurophysiological properties, it would still have caused that same action of going to the fridge.


If the belief is no more than the neurophysiology then this certainly isn't true.

Comparing a human brain to a computer doesn't work very well, since the brain is much more complex. But let's look at it for fun. The bits in a computer are arranged in such a way that they store data. But the computer can also perform actions based upon those data because of the structure of the hardware and the program.

Now, a theist (or at least a non-materialist) will ask, "Who wrote the program to run the human brain?" A fair question. One to which the least satisfactory answer IMO is "God." The simplest answer is "evolution." A more accurate and full answer (still actively being explored BTW) requires a couple of graduate-level courses in philosophy of mind and cognitive science.
redwill
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 7,095
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:04 pm
Location: Wichita, KS

Re: LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

Postby shmenguin on Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:33 pm

redwill wrote:Now, a theist (or at least a non-materialist) will ask, "Who wrote the program to run the human brain?" A fair question.


my response would be, "who created your creator?"

"god" is an insufficient explanation for creation.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 23,720
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Staggy, tjand72 and 7 guests


e-mail