It’s been surreal in the last few days listening to so many people on the Left congratulating big corporations (such as Facebook and Twitter) for silencing the wrong kinds of political speech. Such people have also been waxed lyrically about the desperate need for law and order … at least when it comes to disciplining individuals and groups on the Right.
Of course such leftwingers don’t need to be consistent in their positions on Twitter and law and order. They often believe in the political mantra “by any means necessary” when it comes to various political causes. …
There are various philosophers, logicians and scientists who’ve argued that Nature (or the world) is fuzzy, inconsistent and/or uncertain.
It’s hard to grasp what the words “fuzzy”, “inconsistent” and “uncertain” could even mean when applied to Nature (or to any given x in the world). This is the case even of things “at the tiniest scales”. It’s easy, on the other hand, to accept that things in the world may be fuzzy, inconsistent or uncertain to us — to observers or even to scientific theorists.
As for her article itself: it’s crude and rhetorical. My piece is also (somewhat) rhetorical. It is so because I believe that my own unacademic phrases are a fitting response to Hossenfelder’s own.
But first things first.
I’m not a panpsychist.
I’m not even particularly sympathetic to panpsychism and find some panpsychists’ ideas absurd. Nonetheless, none of this warrants Hossenfelder’s philosophically ignorant and sarcastic article on panpsychism. …
… or do animals deploy concepts?
There’s been a long-running and controversial debate as to whether or not animals are conscious (or have experiences). I believe that it’s most certainly the case that animals are conscious — or at least the “higher animals” are. Of course that claim can’t be proved. That said, I can’t prove that my friends are conscious. So there are no proofs — or even conclusive demonstrations — when it comes to whether any given biological animal — including a human being — is conscious or not.
There’s also the debate as to whether or not animals have beliefs, are intelligent, are capable of thought, etc. This often — mainly — depends on definitions. That is, if the word “belief” (or “thought”) is defined in one way, then animals will be deemed to have beliefs (or to think). If, on the other hand, such a word is defined in another way, then animals won’t be deemed to have beliefs (or to think). …
Isn’t the message in the banner above a perfect expression of racism? It reads:
“WHITE People: What will we do TODAY to change our legacy of violence?”
It’s hard to understand this because these self-appointed and self-described “anti-racists” seem to be fighting racism by being….well, racist. Yes, they’re tying violence — very strongly — to skin colour (i.e., to what’s often called “whiteness”) and even to genes.
So how, exactly, does that work?
The statement also disregards the fact that violence has occurred in every culture and at almost every time since the beginning of the human race. So since such academic theorists and activists seem to be historically illiterate (or simply “lying for Justice”) when it comes to white violence, it’s worth spelling out that white people don’t have a monopoly on violence. …
Firstly we can say that logical identity is reflexive. In other words, everything (or every thing) is identical to itself. In symbols:
∀x (x = x)
For every x (or for every thing), x must equal x (or everything must be identical to itself). That is, everything has the (quasi)-relation of self-identity..
The logic of identity is also symmetrical. In symbols:
If a = b, then b = a
This can also be expressed in quantificational logic:
∀x ∀y ((x = y) ⊃ (y = x))
For every x, and for every y, if x equals — or is identical to — y, then it must also be the case that y is identical to x. …
I always had a problem with the term “meaningless” as it was used by the logical positivists in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. My problem existed even though I sympathised with (some of) the spirit of logical positivism. (I still do.) It seemed to me that classing statements as “meaningless” is problematic and somewhat pompous. And even when I came to realise that the word “meaningless” had a highly-technical meaning, I still found it suspect.
Still, once the details are out of the way, it can be seen that the use of word “meaningless” is not as problematic as it initially sounds. …