This is just a thread with interesting (read: thought-provoking) stuff. Since whenever I make a thread of what I think is just interesting, you guys cannot handle it :P, I thought I'd just make a general thread on it.
This is not a thread for general funny/cute/amusing stuff. So if there's an XKCD comic that's really funny, that;s the chat thread.
This is more for stuff like articles or youtube links or whatever that you find interesting that you don't really have a discussion point about, but that you would think other people might enjoy seeing. People can comment or whatever, but it's not necessary. I suppose a really nice landscape scene with a little blurb about how it relates or enhanced your philosophy would be cute too :D
1. Interesting video on the mind and matter by an author whom I greatly respect and whose book I have to read soon!! urgh as soon as I get my hands on it :D :
2. Interesting article:
3. I have no examples for a picture... but you get what I'm saying right?
Anyway. So don't ask me the purpose of this thread. It is to just spread around some new perspectives and knowledge and what not!
I was just reading Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, and this part is so, so true:
"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breasts there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it! Something of the awfulness, even of Death itself, is referable to this. No more can I turn the leaves of this dear book that I loved, and vainly hope in time to read it all. No more can I look into the depths of this unfathomable water, wherein, as momentary lights glanced into it, I have had glimpses of buried treasure and other things submerged. It was appointed that the book should shut with a spring, for ever and for ever, when I had read but a page. It was appointed that the water should be locked in an eternal frost, when the light was playing on its surface, and I stood in ignorance on the shore. My friend is dead, my neighbour is dead, my love, the darling of my soul, is dead; it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end. In any of the burial-places of this city through which I pass, is there a sleeper more inscrutable than its busy inhabitants are, in their innermost personality, to me, or than I am to them?"
Those moments of complete awareness of the self, and complete awareness of the self's alienation from every other being.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they callfor careful study before they become clear to the intellect. If I ask myself how to judge that this question is more urgent than that, I reply that one judges by the actions it entails. I have never seen anyone die for the ontologi-cal argument. Galileo, who held a scientific truth of great importance, abjured it with the greatest ease as soon as it endangered his life. In a certain sense, he did right. That truth was not worth the stake. Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question. On the other hand, I see many people die because they judge that life is not worth living. I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas or illusions that give them a reason for living (what is called a reason for living is also an excellent reason for dying). I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions." ~ Albert Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus"
Galileo did not "abjur [his discovery] with the greatest ease." Perhaps Albert Camus should study Galileo's life in earnest sometime.
Yeah I was wondering about that. The PDF version had an endnote. Maybe it mentioned something? I dunno I didn't check.
I've got no other problems with that, I just get very defensive of Galileo. I feel like I really connect with the guy on an emotional level, y'know? He's a personal hero for me.
Except, perhaps, I might suggest that the heliocentric view of the universe was closely tied in with the egotistical attitudes of the church at the time, so I wouldn't say it was a matter of indifference (otherwise they wouldn't have persecuted the guy and put him under house arrest in the first place -- it would have been a waste of the church's time).
Search up Car Radio by 21 Pilots on youtube. Thought provoking song or not?
Excellent lyrics, Izuo.
I've been thinking about the place of living organisms in the scheme of the rest of matter, and the success of modern (or reductionist) science in predicting and explaining inanimate objects.
One interesting approach that I heard somewhere, I don't remember where, would be to consider it like a chess board. The physical laws are like the rules of chess; you know, castles move up and down, pawns only move forward, etc etc. We can describe those with preciseness and predict where a piece can be - a pawn can only ever move forward, so if it's in the corner it won't move, or a rook encompassed by other pieces will only be able to move a certain direction, etc etc. From this we can infer the laws of chess, and predict with a certain amount of uncertainty what will happen. A pawn that has the option of moving straight or of killing a piece diagonally in front of it, for instnace - we can predict that it will do either of the two, and I suppose with complex enough mathematics you could assign probabilities and all that to each of the pieces in each position. Thus we discover the laws. This, I would say, is nature - it is predictable, regular, and at least theoretically you can reduce it all to a number of mechanisms or laws - elegant indeed.
However, to play a game of chess and only think of the rules is, in fact, not to play chess at all. However, we cannot ignore the players in chess. To study nature and be unable to explain the fact that the pawn went straight forward instead of diagonally, the rook went up instead of down, essentially the actual workings, cannot explain chess completely. We have to take into account the element that also effects chess, and that is us. Thus, to explain everything and not to explain humans, who play an important causal role in reality, if not in the universe as a whole, is an explanation that is lacking.
The interesting thing is that a computer can play and win at chess. The rule of "killing the king" is not something that requires deeper meaning. And in fact, it can play to lose too, with the right programming.
Just interesting (IMO). No need to comment.
Well, physical laws apply to humans just like they do to any other stuff in the universe, so... :/
I am aware. :)
So many books to read, so little time T_T
I knoew most of you guys don't give two f* **s about my tulpa, but the post's interesting nonetheless. It's about a tulpa's independence and their own subconsious. Plus it has the word quantum in it (ah shuddup, this thread needed a bump anyways).
Hmmm...interesting for sure
That passage from A Tale of Two Cities is one of my all-time favorites. It's the biggest thing I took away from that book. So . . . good. :)
Hmm . . . interesting facts.
According to an article in the online library database at the college I dual enroll at, there are more confirmed stars in the universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches and in all the deserts on earth (and those are just the ones we can see!).
Weird to think what could be out there. Maybe the reality of deep space is crazier than anything the Star Trek people or George Lucas could think up.
Ooh, Collin does dual enrollment. I'm probably going to do that in a couple years.
As for the stars thing, that's cool. It kinda reminds me of a Bible verse, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.
But...wow. It's kind of mind-blowing that there are that many stars in the universe...more than all the grains of sand in the world? Wow. That's a lot of sand. And a lot of stars.
Okay, well, this isn't philosophical, but I thought it was interesting. I stumbled upon this passage in an article on telegraph. com I found after a Google search.
"Larry Page and Sergey Brin met at Stanford University in 1995. A year later they start collaborating on a search engine, which they called BackRub. In 1997 they decided they needed a new name and came up with Google, a misspelling of googol. A googol is 10100, or one followed by a hundred zeros in decimal representation. Its official number name is 10 duotrigintillion. The term “googol” was suggested in 1938 by nine-year-old Milton Sirotta, who was out walking with his uncle, the mathematician Edward Kasner (1878-1955). A googolplex is even bigger: one followed by a googol noughts, ie 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 100 – more than all the hydrogen atoms in the observable universe."