Delano

As a tarot reader, astrologer and a clairvoyant. I would say that they both are relevant. Although at the moment o find astrology has more pull because it is symbolic and it follow my way of think.

Troy I am not bring judgmental, because I am not sating tour position is wrong. When you talk about behaviors being wrong. What I am saying is more about beliefs and attitudes. However from the suicide bombers their position is the correct one. You day we make the laws, then you day other people run the system. No other people also make the laws. So for me your response lacks internal consistency. In my opinion you are fitting the world to your beliefs, because there is dome objective reality and universal truth.

I remember you were using statistics to prove your point. I systematically explained why your conclusion was wrong. I fund it fascinating when people use science or mathematics to support their argument without understanding the science they are quoting. What I said is that science is dismissive about fields that don't lend themselves to quantification. Luke religion and astrology. Granted this isn't all scientist. But it isn't an open minded position.

Troy I'll ask you a direct question why do you assume your beliefs are correct. I think most people assume they are right in their assumptions which is fine. The problem is this doesn't always lead to sensible conclusions even if they are valid.

Troy the real issue for me is that you feel your beliefs are facts. Once you assume that you are right you stop thinking. Or at your thinking is constrained. I'll go back and check, but I asked you the following question. Isn't set theory a subset of logic. I suggested you look st the embodied mind theory, no response. You are implying that I don't have the fundamentals to argue certain points. This is the difference between us I can discuss s topic without the need for the other person to share my views. Since I am interested in original thought not just rehashing what I know. My objective is to have an open mind.

Troy I am making assumptions and generalities, but my whole position is that absolutes and objectivity are not very useful.

What I www talking about was logic, I think set theory and Venn diagrams are a subset of logic. You think there are correct ways of doing things and some people are mistaken in their views and hence their characters. I don't believe that simply because I can't objectively judge that. Morals are accepted local practices. So they aren't universal. The KKK would say that black people are inferior and have defects in their character. You would say that suicide bombers are wrong. I would say I can't judge someone's actions. So this is what I mean when I say your position is closer to the KKK. Since you share the same viewpoint that somethings are objectively wrong. That is not my position.

Money has a price it's called the interest rate and the exchange rate. I would agree that the value is arbritray but it is based on supply and demand. The US Govermnent funds itself with Government bonds. Some of those bonds are held by companies and countries. Those bonds are secured by the taxing ability of the US. If you print more more money each dollar is less valuable, and in effect you have decreases your outstanding debt. Let's say there 1 trillion in debt and the us economy produces 20 trilion in goods. So each dollar that is lent you are pretty sure the US can pay you back. Let's say that the economy drops 10%, well now you still have atrillion in debt but it is supported by less revenue. So your bondholder is likely to be happy because the dollar is worth 20 percent less, and is more likely your debt is less secured. So you wouldn't lend the Us more money. Let's say you lend a friend $1,000 every year, and he pays you $200 dollars interest every year. One day he says look I am know working part time, you would be less likely to lend her a $1,000 and you may start worrying about gettng your money back. So you may say look I'll lend you $1,000 for less than a year but you have to pay me more interest. Hopefully we won't find out if you are right. Because if the US defaults on it's debt then it will effect the global economy.

Troy I am evaluating your position not saying whether ot is correct. The statement I was attempting is ad follows. You and the KKK don't share mu beliefs about being non judging. So in that dense you are closer in your world views about others. Than either of you are with me. I have not said that your view point nor the KKK is wrong. I have said it is not mine. However you could imply that because most people assume they are right. You may have missed the point about the law. You are talking interpretation of the law. You said we create the laws, no some of us create laws. It was legal to treat people like property.

The US is funded through government bonds. China is one of the holders. If you print more money you devalue the currency. Germany did it after World. War I. People were paid in buckets and there was hitlet

Pioneer - I wasn't specifically thinking of Jung, but the comment fits. Where in physical reality is the mind located. You could also ask the same question about the following: thought; memory; feelings; the subconscious; unconscious; preconscious. Your definition of mbs works for me.

So you are saying being judgemental is good for society. This position leads to intolerance or the inability to accept difference. I would wager more harm is done by judemental people in following their beliefs. Your position is more closely aligned with the KKK than mine.

I came across the following quote. We might greet with skepticism, perhaps ridicule, the mystic's claim that imagination is the path to happiness. But imagination is not alien to reason. How else do scientific discoveries occur except when scientists imagine that something is true - the hypothesis - and then set about to prove it?" If we make the laws then why do we have the inequities in the criminal justice system. We don't even elect the people who run the judicial system.

Me not judging people does not hamper either the judicial or the criminal justice system. Thwre is no need for me to judge anyone's actions. How can science prove something unquantifiable? There are certain things that don't lend themselves to testing

Creativity doesn't mean thinking, I don't know if that is what you were saying but I like the idea.

I fund most of your comments thought provoking. Except when you say some thing is obvious it self evident. There is very little that us obvious or self evident to me.

Religion and science sometimes share the belief that their works view is the only proper way of irientating yourself in the world. This is incredibly arrogant. Personally a fund that mist scientists dismiss any thing that can be quantitatively verified. Which strikes me as absurd since the same science can't tell where a particle us located. Or that they dismissed the ether as being superstitious. Yet they can not account for 80 percent if the universe without relying on a fudge using dark better and dark energy. There are things we don't know and there may be things that we can never know. My position allows me to accept that premise. The reason I started thus thread is that my concept if reality is being challenged and I am developing a more philosophical ethereal worldview.

I can not say what is wrong for someone else unless we share the same belief system. Judge not less you be judged is my motto. The moment I say someones actions are wrong. I am assuming I know more than they do. Which is not something I am comfortable saying. Newton's ideas have remained in place for more than two centuries. And in the macro level they are still valid. I would say your position is similar to slave owners. They see tjrir slaves as animals or children. I am not prepared to embrace that philosophy. It is very dangerous to judge a different culture or even a different period without understanding it. I would also say that it is next to impossible to objectively judge anything external to yourself. Furthermore I would say that it is very difficult to judge yourself objectively. You may have misunderstood my position. i said it is not something I would choose. I remember once I heard a Muslim cleric philosopher speak. I was struck by the beauty and the elegance of the ideas. Not all Muslims believe suicide bombers are right. I'll ask my friend who is a Muslim what he thinks. The logical statement is not could be taller it would be taller. If you accept the premise you have to accept the conclusion that follows from it. The ability to work out gravitation is quite tricky. I would say gravity is not really understood even now. Also you are talking about a field that has had several big minds working on it in tandem. Newton was notorious for working alone. So you are comparing a man to a group. Also there are very few people that have advanced mathematics as much as Newton single handedly. If I am mistaken please let me know what scientist you believe has done so. They major difference between you and I, is that I do not feel the need to make moral or even ethical pronouncements. I don't feel qualified to do so even though it is merely my opinion. The reason being is that puts you on a slippery slope I think everyone needs to arrive at their own truth not mine. You are clearly more practical perhaps even more dogmatic than I am. I have very strong opinions but there are merely that not edicts laws or even parables. I guess I would ask you why it is so important to have really defined opinions of others.

Based on their beliefs there is nothing illogical about suicide bombers. I am bit a cultural or religious elitist do I can't judge their actions However I would not be s interested in being a suicide bombers. But culturally I wouldn't judge them. Actually you'd be better if using philosophy to check mathematics. Which is why the really interesting questions like are numbers created or discovered it actually philosophical. There is a philosophy of mathematics and mathematical philosophy. Not being a mathematician I wm interested in the former. Logically it is true but not factual. Since some women are taller than men. I would disagree with you there, I would say Newtown is the biggest known mind. I read one maybe two biographies. He has a pretty impressive resume. He us the beginning of the scientific method, he developed a branch of mathematics, he did work on optics, color theory gravitation and he ws the Treasurer of England. Can you name any treasurer that's created a branch of mathematics. There should be handful since there are lots of Ph.D. granted.

Troy - Your last sentence gets to the heart of what I mean. My beliefs are mine and my opinions need not be right. That's the whole point, nobody thinks their beliefs could be wrong. If you take religion is world view who says ah you are right I haven't A clue. No in any disagreement the underlying belief is, if I can just get this person to see the truth. Not maybe they are right. I once decided to try and understand someone's presentation. Instead of picking the bits that matched my beliefs. I assumed it was all correct and I tried to follow it. Its an interesting mental and social exercise. There is a group of philosophers and mathematicians that believe that numbers are an invention of the human mind. There are some very interesting philosophy about what is the nature of numbers and hence mathematics. Check out Wikipedia the embodied mind theory. Do you believe numbers were created or discovered. O am guessing you would sat discovered I would say created since it fits mu philosophy better. It is human nature to discount anything we either don't believe in it don't understand. We use mathematics and statistics to check the soundness of an idea. What do we use to check the soundness of mathematics. Religion and science are quite similar. Except we start with the ideal and then live life according to it. In science we look at life and try to find the theory. I should clarify what I mean about beliefs and conclusions. You can make a statement that is logically true, but factually false. Men are taller than women, John is a man Joan is a women, so John is taller than Joan. Listen to atheistic scientist discuss religion. They say how can people believe this, we aren't in the dark ages. Science can not answer all our questions. The question about meaning or existence can better be understood using religion. Science is quite dismissive of anything it can't quantify. Can you name any current scientist who believes in the occult, no they would be ridiculed. About a subject their colleagues are ignorant about. However if you were to look at the scientists and philosophers before the age of reason or pre industrialization you would see a marked contrast. Newtown was the last magician/scientist.

I only came across one couple or person that didn't give any effort to the name if their child. I think names do matter. Similar to chanting. A found or a word had a vibration. A friend told me my name sounds like I have money. I think James Baldwin wasn't hampered by his name. Although I believe the name can describe character. So I am not certain whether I agree it disagree with Pioneer. Actually it is both. I think Zoë is talented, and yor name descubes you.

Which is why I like meta-thinking. Which is thinking about your thinking. It is fascinating to discover your deep seated beliefs. Which if you make any progress, will likely lead to becoming more self aware. I do believe that it is important to see your deep seated beliefs about the world and yourself. Although I wouldn't suggest doing so. I also believe it is important to be self delusional. Simply because seeing the truth isn't likely to make you happy. There aren't that many happy philosophers. The happiest people I have met seem blissfully unaware, perhaps they are blissfully unconcerned.

I have always enjoyed talking about ideas. Although recently I have realized that I want to convince my opponent that my position is correct. I am surprisingly, at least to me, not trying to convince them they are wrong . I don't think it is possible for any opinions to be wrong. The real issues is understanding the assumptions or beliefs. Since the opinion is based on beliefs and assumptions. I would say this is true of any belief. So for me there isn't any knowledge or truths. Science to me is a belief system. And while it is rigorous and does have checks and balances it has flaws. It's major stumbling block is its arrogance and close mindedness. Granted this may not be true for all scientist and I may be assuming this incorrectly. Most scientist are atheist. The more scientific position would be agnostic. Which may be related to the word ignorant. To say you don't know is actually more scientific or at least more open minded. I think Socrates had it right, when he said he doesn't know. Which means you haven't stopped thinking. Once you assume you are right, things will at some point go horribly wrong. Simply because you are unaware and also unprepared for the truth.

Funny my astrology teacher used to say that.

I don't ask why I like I've cream, I just eat it.