Pepin

If a theory is fully correlated with current empirical data, then such a theory can be considered 100% accurate within a given margin of error. As an example, if we derive a mathematical formula from empirical data that describes the motion of springs, and this formula describes all of the currently available data, then the model can be considered 100% accurate. In such an instance, another theory cannot be more accurate as there is already a 1:1 correlation of theory and the data. To think of this mathematically, if we have a line plot in which every point can be described by the function f(x) = x, then no other function will describe the line plot more accurately as it is already 100% accurate. In terms of empirical data, a function which describes data will be subject to a margin of error, which means that any prediction a theory makes which is currently 100% accurate will be within the margin or error. Whether the theory holds up a few magnitudes within the margin of error is currently unknown. In the case of the spring, if physicists believe there is more to the story, they may hypothesize and come up with new formula is created which may intend to describe the motion of a spring more accurately than the previous theory. The emphasis is on the "may", as the hypothesis is predictive. In order for this new model to be validated, further empirical testing must be done, which might simply involve increasing the precision of the measurements. If the previous prevailing theory describes the new data, then this is further evidence to support that theory. If the theory diverges from the data, then the theory can be considered accurate on scales above this, but not at these scale. If the hypothesis matches the results, then it can be considered to be more accurate than the previous theory as it not only describes all of the previous data, but all of the current empirical data. If the hypothesis does not match, then physicists will model the results and attempt to construct a new formula and hypothesis. I hope this helps provide a better way of looking at the accuracy of theories. Theories become more or less accurate when compared to new empirical data. A theory cannot become more accurate on its own, or in comparison to another, without empirical testing. And just to provide a caveat, science in the real world often is very messy and does not follow the above form.

I think the best approach to responding to this is just to give my own answer as opposed to responding to your argument. I apologize if this is annoying. The accuracy of a theory is based on the comparison of predicted measurement against the actual measurement. If a theory predicts the strength of a magnetic field generated by an inductor with a specific current and voltage running through it, the accuracy of the theory is the predicted value against the measured value. In psychology, the measurement may be a behavior such as lying to avoid consequence. If the theory suggests that the behavior ought to be quite high for particular reasons, an experiment would be conducted to measure the actual number of liars against the predicted amount in conjunction with the tenants of the theory. Though the measurements may confirm the prediction, further examination and testing are often needed to rule out alternative theories which would indicate the result. In terms of comparing theories, it is possible to say one theory is less accurate that another when the measurements of one correlates more with empirical data than another. Newtonian physics is less accurate than special and general relativity because it matches the data less than the competing theory. This does not imply that Newtonian physics is false, rather that the predictions it makes are not very good in particular circumstances, such as close to light speeds. Theories are often models constructed from empirical data. The model is tested by comparing new measurements from unknown untested conditions, against the prediction the current model generates. If we construct a model of magnetic field strength based on testing of inductors with different sizes with the same voltage and current, we predict the magnetic strength based by changing a variable, say voltage, while keeping everything else constant, and compare the prediction of the model to the measured strength.

I would tell you that you aren't real and that you are only the product of my mind, but then perhaps I am only the product of my own mind. Given this fact, I may actually not even be the product if my own mind, and yet a product of a higher mind, whose mind is a product of mind itself. Granted you can never know anything for certain, yet certainty exists, there must exist a universe where knowledge its automatic, to which such properties must be appropriated to even the base process of life. Our interaction with such a universe must of occurred paradoxically at some point, but since time would be inapplicable, it must be reasoned the our conception of timeless concepts such as logic are the fundamental result of part of our supposed mental functioning existing outside the realm of time and space. Quantum mechanically, we are entangled with non existent states which only give false illusions of sensation and perception. Furthermore, though non existence might be the foundation of our ultimate existence, it is nice to know that we are not unlike the rest of the universe. /nonsense

The best answer to this in my mind is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It explains quite well how sensation, perception, and consciousness can be created through various arrangements of atoms. This quite reminds me of Descartes in his argument for God. The idea of a soul is quite natural given much of our internal and external experiences. Considering a purely natural basis for it is very difficult to think about, which likely induces the much easier non-answer of a deity.

Based on the Bomb in the Brain series, the behavior in the comment section is what we ought to expect. If the arguments made in the series are valid, then this is further supporting evidence. I am more optimistic than most on this subject than most. It is of course jarring to see such reactions and rationalizations, but it is better to be seeing these responses than to not. Someone who spoke out during the age of slavery would not receive such rationalizations or justifications, rather they'd be ignored or laughed at. During abolition, when someone spoke out, those who supported slavery would rationalize, justify, and become defensive as to their actions. Though impossible to predict, I feel as though the tide of science will sweep through slowly. I don't think there will be much of an issue with spanking in the future, but I do think it will take some time for proponents to die off. It is kind of like how the greatest blow to racism were racists dying of old age.

I read the table of contents and was confused. Seems very strange.

All the responses above are great. It is best to assume that you are would benefit more in the long term of more sleep than less sleep. You may be a person like me, who can do great on little sleep for a couple of days, yet who suffers from the issues caused by this when prolonged. Knowing if you are that type of person is an aspect of self knowledge. You may find that you can come up with great material when sleep deprived. Or you may find that what you thought was great was actually quite nonsensical. What I mean to say is that it is best to think of it in the long term as opposed to the short term. If a stroke of inspiration strikes and you are able to produce great material while sleep deprived, I would say to stay up and to do some work. If this happens and you usually do not produce great material when sleep deprived, you ought to sleep on it as to not waste time. If you aren't inspired, you ought to not stay up and focus on the project in the long term. Rather difficult. My brain tends to think about twenty different things at once. Worse, at night I tend to start processing everything, so I will find myself thinking about various things without conscious choice. I have actually woken up a few times and found myself in deep thought. I improvise a lot of music on my guitar, and I find that I will often start composing songs and solos in my head. I want to emphasize that this is not conscious thinking for the most part. If you have ever tried the sort of meditation where you try not to think, and you find yourself thinking about some obscure subject every two seconds, this is what it is like. Though I have no proof, I think that this sort of experience is not your conscious decided to think about something, yet rather your conscious being led to look at some mental chatter which is already occurring. It is like if you sit in a quiet room, and then hear people talking behind, your consciousness will be led to instinctively to look behind and to pay attention to the conversation. In IFS terms, when you attempt to create mental silence, a part takes the seat of consciousness, and you observe this part's thoughts. I would not suggest that this taking of the seat of consciousness is any sort of choice on behalf of the part, rather it is just the instinctive part of the mind to drive your focus to what is the most active, whether it be: a flash of light; an itch on your nose; or internal or external dialog.

It might have something to do with the higher abuse rates for homosexual people. There is still a lot of bigotry around, with the biggest source being from schools. At my high school at least, people talked bad about anyone who was gay. It didn't seem like it was because they were against homosexuality, but rather because it was an easy bullying mechanism. At other schools, it can be far worse.

Is this lecture in the sense of what parents do? Or is it more that you give long explanations? Are you interested in what the other person's thoughts and beliefs are? If you aren't, or care more about getting across your thoughts and feelings, that is completely fine, just realize that you are faking interest in them to expouse your own ideas. If you think you are interested in them, but keep doing this, then maybe part of you isn't while another part is. When I an in dialog with someone, I often repeat back what they say and ask about implications of their ideas. I want to understand what they are taking about completely and ask questions about what didn't make sense to me, or I say why I agree or disagree based off their point of view. It isn't like "you are wrong because x", rather it is "if I understand you right, (make their argument), but something I don't understand is x because of y, can you help me resolve this?". Who is right our wrong goes out the window, it is just trying to understand what a person is saying, and providing feedback about what you don't understand. It is ok to talk about your own beliefs, but first you have to understand theirs.

Can't watch the video at the moment, but I followed this a few weeks back. From what I read, he is not saying that it is immoral to abort, rather that it is the best choice.Given that abortion is not immoral anyway, it makes sense for someone to abort a fetus if they do not have the financial or emotional means if it is something they are unable to handle. It is twenty times more difficult to raise a child with these complications, and the obligation continues well into adulthood. This decision isn't much different than someone aborting because they do not have the financial or emotional means to handle a child, except that they would have if the child did not have the complication.Seriously, put yourself into this situation. You are ready to have a child, you get the fetus screened, and then you find that your child is going to take twenty times more time and money to raise. You may have been ready for a child, but you certainly aren't ready for this. I know a couple that has a child with this and all I can give them is praise because they devote the majority of their time to the child. I really doubt that most people are capable of the same level of commitment, not because they are cowards, but because it is extremely extremely difficult and costs so much money. I am not saying that people must abort a fetus which has been confirmed to have down syndrome, or that people with down syndrome ought to have been aborted, rather that people ought to make the same economic calculation that they did when deciding if they wanted a child in the first place, while adjusting the numbers to fit the current circumstance.

The statement makes a lot of sense in terms of socialist theory, which states that the government ought to control the means of production. To believe full government control of production being superior to all else also mean partial government control is superior easily enabled. The idea that the jobs are "given" is meant to imply that the solution to joblessness is clear and easy, and that the capitalistic system is against the giving of jobs which would provide superior services and working conditions. It is similar to the "free healthcare" line which provides an inaccurate comparison. "Would you rather have to fight tooth and nail to get the medical coverage you need to survive only to be overcharged by CEOs and corporations, or would you rather just get free healthcare?". It is designed to take any complexity out of the issue by implicitly making someone argue against it sound like they are idiots. The concept that making particular jobs public releases the metaphysically stolen profit from the capitalistic system is quite present in this sort of thought, though it is more likely to be thought of as "it costs X to make Y, person A makes Z, Z is being exploited as the company is making a profit".

This has me thinking that the sexualized version of a male is somewhat different than that of a female. Large muscles for instance is a trait which is primarily sexualized in context to men. Torso placement seems to have quite a role in it, which can be demonstrated by men who thrust their crotch into full view when approaching women. Wealth and status also seem to be very sexualized in context to men, as can be seen in: ads, most popular music, and television. This may be something I have to do to more thinking, but at the moment, it seems to me that the sexualization in western media manifests itself in different manners. Trying to take the sexual characterizations of one gender and apply them to the other gender is likely to appear strange as muscles on a woman tends not to be seen as attractive. I don't mean to say that "this or that ought to be sexual in regards to gender x", rather that "a large population finds x sexual in regard to this gender". Though sexual traits do not need be mutually exclusive, they may trend towards this to provide differentiation. Also, the population need not appeal sexually to the population, rather the population just needs to label a trait as sexually attractive. This is the difference between a man who believes that large muscles are attractive to women, vs a man who finds muscular men attractive. It is the difference between a woman who believes that makeup is attractive to men, vs a woman who finds women with makeup sexually appealing.

My experience with cops is being incredibly annoyed at their wasting of my time. Was caught with friends on campus smoking dope and the cop wouldn't stop with the lecture. I was mostly bored and extremely high. The fact that he didn't go away or stop talking was what frustrated me. I had stuff on me, and managed to empty out my pockets without him noticing it. I was far too calm and apathetic, but that is how I generally am, though not so apathetic now. The other times with cops were because they were over suspicious. Similar feeling. One cop asked my birth date and I them, and they repeated it back the sort numerical way, to which I repeated back the longer way. I knew he was trying to trip me up, and I didn't know if it was day/month/year or month/day/year where I live, so we went back and forth for a bit and he didn't seem to understand why I couldn't confirm it with numbers.

I would say that the main issue is the application of the word "personal". It isn't a concept that applies to reality. It is the same as asking "what color is the number two?". A logical error is that if reality is shared between seven billion people, then reality cannot be personal as the same is reality is shared by seven billion people. Worse, what does it even mean? That each person's version of reality is different? That reality was made for each individual and everyone in your reality is an illusion? A good response would go into physics and evolution. It seems to be claimed that an impersonal reality would entail an illusion of self, yet if the self relates itself to reality in any manner, then it is not an illusion.

I don't have a clue as to what you should do. The pros, cons, and risks of dropping out of college contain so many different factors to think about. Trying to calculate these factors in conjunction with the pros, cons, and risks of becoming of entrepreneur seems far too overwhelming. So I suggest breaking it up into completely separate questions. "Should I become an entrepreneur?" seems like the first question to ask. This is where you want to think about the risks, the investment of time and resources need, failure plans, how success or failure will impact your future, and so on. If the answer is yes, the second question may be "do I need secondary education or additional training for the field I wish to go into?". If you want to design some kind of video game, some schooling may be rather helpful. If you know nothing about managing finances, a few courses might help. To be clear, I don't really know the best way to approach this or the right questions to ask, but questions like "would doing full time university with entrepreneurship on the side be a waste of time and money or a helpful backup in case things don't work out?" are only going to paralyze you, as they contain two very real possibilities. This plan likely appeals to you as it seems to minimize the risk to a large extent, but it still bothers you because there are still risks. I will also add that this plan might backfire in that you are not able to give your all to you classes which results in poor grades, which hinders your ability to get a job, or it might hinder your business... Or it might work out great. Very difficult to predict. To be blunt, you really have to be open about the risks you are willing to expose yourself to, and to decide based on what you are willing to risk. There are risks to everything, going to school, not going to school, starting a business, not starting a business, working steady at a job, working many jobs, spending time on a project which may or may not pan out.

There are many parts to you, and they often act in parallel. I am often thinking about twenty different things at once, though not consciously. With practice, I find that you can tune into different parts. I actually have a theory which I base off myself, which is that we always have a song stuck in our head, it is just that we aren't always listening to it. In certain moments, I kind of loose my ability to tune in and out of various parts, which creates a bit of anxiety and confusion. It is like I am hit with a wall of different thoughts, which I have no ability to handle. I tend to get a lot of random thoughts and ideas when I am trying not to have them, or before bed. I find that sometimes I reach a point where I am not quite asleep, and part of me just goes off thinking about something random. Sometimes it makes sense, and other times it doesn't. A good exercise to practice is free association. Meditation is also quite helpful, but will likely be frustrating as this behavior will increase 10 fold. Many people consider me extremely random as my train of thought can often be associative. I can control this, but I don't mind being random as I am able to express myself far better, and it makes me far more interesting. Most people like it a lot, though certain people just get really confused. Honestly, all I aim to be to other people is entertaining and interesting, I don't need to be someone that they want to be friends with, but I do want to be someone that they love interacting with. This post likely isn't helpful, but I think this is quite normal, it is just that people seem to not realize it.

Typically it is said when the person wants to lie, but does not. I might want to tell my imaginary son that he is the best dancer ever, but instead I will tell him "to be honest, you don't exist".

When people don't put effort into rebuttals. This is pretty common, but to criticize some of the posts I have seen on here, there have been some members who put a lot of effort and thought into an argument, which happens to be incorrect, and are only responded to by short replies which are not thought out nor convincing for those who aren't familiar with the ideas. It is my opinion that if someone has taken the time to craft their position, that you ought to take some time in crafting a response. It does not feel good to spend a good half an hour to two hours writing up material which is very difficult to think about, let alone to convey, to only have people spend half a minute reading your creation and giving an unfulfilling off the cuff response that only addresses the surface of what you wrote. I am not complaining about anything that happens to me, as I tend not to have negative responses to my arguments on the forum. If I reply to something where effort was put in, I take the time to ensure a quality response. It is what you would want. To take this out of context of the forum, putting in similar effort as someone else in general is a good guideline. If someone spent a lot of time in helping you out with a problem, be willing to spend just as much time and effort in helping them out when they need it. If someone listens to an album you recommended and talked to you about it, listen to an album they recommended and talk to them about it.

This is a pretty good topic to bring up, as it important, and difficult to think about. As we both seem to agree, the applicability of any conclusion we or any other's come to is likely to be little. A major reason for this is that a free society has a large incentive to eliminate grey areas. To expand upon this, as I believe it is important, gray areas are a plague upon society. Though the black and whites are clear, the gray is impossible to see through. Because of this, systems and social customs will be devised to avoid running into gray. To provide an example, abortion is a matter where very early on is completely acceptable, while the day before is the equivalent to murdering a baby. Somewhere in the middle is difficult to discern as though the fetus is not quite a baby, it is not quite a collection of a few cells. So, instead of attempting to answer the question of if it is ethical to abort a baby a week before it is due, we instead avoid it altogether by always aborting very early on. Social forces would encourage avoiding the grayness, as well as encouraging safe sex. Insurance companies would make early abortion cheap and affordable, while putting high costs on later term abortions. Friends and family would display strong support in getting rid of the embryo as fast as possible, as having a close relationship with someone who may have "murdered" a baby is likely to bring much turmoil. Education would seek to avoid the issue of unwanted pregnancy altogether. Better and better safe sex devices would be created to eliminate unwanted pregnancy, while decreasing any side effects. And so on. Of course this does not eliminate all grayness as it is possible that a device failed, or that health complications make late term abortion necessary to preserve the mother's life. But I would not suggest that such grayness is a cause for alarm, as it prevalent enough, it is subject to the same market forces which aid in eliminating grayness. Better devices would be manufactured, more comprehensive tests would be performed to ensure a mother could give birth. I spent about twenty minutes writing up a response to the primary question of risk assessment, but I was not happy with it. It is not so much the ideas, but more the conveyance of them. I will attempt another response at a later time. Likely too tired.

When I am driving, the passenger complaining at other drivers who aren't competent. My goal is to not care about other drivers unless they are going to cause an accident. This complaining irks me because it makes me more likely to do it, it serves no purpose, and because I have to react to their complaints. I work in fast food and I hate people who order a hot coffee at the drive thru, when at the window tell me I got it wrong because they ordered ice drive me crazy. I am very good at my job and repeat their order back to them about two or three times while emphasizing the "hot". I do this because people often mess up. Maybe this isn't a pet peeve, but I really dislike these people because I can't insist that they messed up. I don't have an issue remaking the coffee if they say "oh I am sorry, I said hot but I wanted ice", but the "you didn't listen to me and now you are wasting my time" vibe is rather frustrating. To complete this rant, most customers do not know how to order coffee and require a stepping through of all of the options. "Hot or ice... What size... Cream and sugar... Is that all?".

Listen to your consumers. If enough of your market is not comfortable with the name, isn't this an indicator to change it? Aren't producers influenced by consumer preference? I do not mean to suggest that you ought to change the name, but just realize that you may be alienating a large market base. Worse, someone may develop a similar app with a "less offensive" title, which may very negatively affect you. I also believe it is good to emphasize with people who might legitimately be offended. I can certainly understand that if I personally, or a close relative had gone through the holocaust, that the use of the term Nazi in such a way might trigger some offense. It isn't to say that this is rational or that I ought to be offended, but I think it would be quite understandable for that to be a trigger.

I quite like the atheist community. When the subject is politics, I tend to cringe, as the level of thinking is too surface based.

I believe Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden have conveyed similar words, perhaps in regard to some subclass of the social metaphysicians, but perhaps elsewhere.

It would also stop all passengers from using their phones when someone else is driving.

Can you provide an example of a philosophical topic which doesn't need universality? It isn't that I don't agree or disagree, I am more inclined to agree, but what are we talking about exactly?