Below are a few unsolved problems in philosophy. but I'm sure some of the blitizens at grasscity can make a breakthrough or two haha. please refer to the question your talking about if you post. Oh, and feel free to add your own, or PM me and i'll add it to the OP. The List: Art objects what is the criteria for art objects and are these criteria entirely context-dependent? Molyneux problem If a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which the globe, before he touched them? Moral luck The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same. For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck". The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control. Existence of mathematical objects What are numbers, sets, groups, points, etc.? Are they real objects or are they simply relationships that necessarily exist in all structures? Sorites paradox Otherwise known as the "heap paradox", the question regards how one defines a "thing." Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw? If so, is it still a bale of hay if you remove another straw? If you continue this way, you will eventually deplete the entire bale of hay, and the question is: at what point is it no longer a bale of hay? 1. one million grains of sand is a heap 2. a million grains of sand minus one is still a heap Hard problem of consciousness The hard problem of consciousness is the question of what is consciousness and why do we have consciousness as opposed to being mindless zombies. PS. I know most of these can't be solved per se but it's fun to talk about
Everything is art. The way you walk, the way you write, the way you speak. The order in which objects are placed on your desk is art as well. The Molyneux problem is related to something I learned in psych. If a blind man were made to see after his blindness and had touched both the cube and the globe, he would be able to identify which object is which. Morality has the ability to be re-shaped and re-imprinted. How do you think the army takes normal civilians out of their lives and turns them into killing machines? Morality is based on how you were imprinted by your surrounding, with some direct focus on your parents. Mathmatical objects are imaginary at first, unless created in some direct relevance to some system seen in nature. Still imaginary, it at least has some sort of physical reality tangent to the objects. In other words, mathmatics is a system based on the imagination of humans, but a system that has the ability to be seen in the manifestation of reality. So in other words, the system itself is imaginary but it can be seen in what is not. Meh, sorities paradox is based upon perception. If a heap that has 200 straws, then it's a heap to me. I mean, we don't have to have language describe everything that we can see. Everything is as it is, and no need to get all nit picky about what a heap minus 300 straws is called, you see it as it is man. Name it what you want as long as the person knows what you are referring to. Well there are those who are consciousness yet they still remain as mindless zombies. Actually, there are a lot of people like this. My question would be what differs the mindless zombies from the intellects with the ability to reason outside the box?
Say in 1621 we retired the Mayflower and put it on display in Boston. It starts aging. We replace one beam of wood. It's still the Mayflower right? Then we replace another beam of wood and another beam and another beam until we no longer have any pieces of the original ship. At what point did it stop being the Mayflower and become a replica?
my opinions Traditionally we've declared certain things to have artistic value such as drawings and paintings, but a person could consider anything art if he declares there is aesthetic quality to it. Yes I believe he could differentiate between the cube and globe before touching them. Uh, I'm still trying to figure out how to answer the rest of them.
-I believe art can be in the manifestation of anything put into a pattern, including the pattern of words you put together to signify your thought. These patterns can be both regular and irregular. Good art, to me, are patterns with messages or strong emotion(which many times portray a common message.) -I think the Molyneux problem has to deal with the blind mans intelligence. If the blind man is some unknown point more intelligent than another blind man in an experiment, he would be able to form the picture in his head from the feeling of the object.. I believe some blind men would not be able to make the association even if they were told that the object was equal distance from the middle all the way around. -I believe that a person that commits crime(harm to other individuals) for survival is morally superior than a person that commits crime for personal pleasure. Well put. I believe consciousness, the sense of self, is a collection of memories, way of doing things/thinking, the way one looks, DNA. I believe the sense of self comes about when the brain develops the ability to store thought. My question is whether consciousness is the same as the sense of self. If everything minus the collection of memories came together, there would be a 'reincarnated' form of self walking about, but without the same consciousness. If they were to clone my DNA, I wouldn't be 'seeing' outside of the clones body; We would have two separate consciousnesses. If they were to put my brain in my clones body, I would 'see' outside of the body. However, if they were to put my brain into a different persons body, I'm sure my brain would have a separate sense of self, because I would be conscious of my new body. So is consciousness then, just the brain? I'm looped.
Art objects what is the criteria for art objects and are these criteria entirely context-dependent? Art is simply the ability for the physical body to project its inner spirit onto the canvas or any other medium. It is best described as aesthetics but it is along the lines of how Wave Length and emotional tone of the artist transfers to their Work onto the canvas being the reflection of the soul. If it feels like Love then it was made with Love. If it feels ‘dark' it was made with Hate. Both of them are viewpoints that You look at and then deciding on ‘How You Feel' you either like one subject over the other. Hope that doesn't keep you thinking too much. Molyneux problem If a man born blind, and able to distinguish by touch between a cube and a globe, were made to see, could he now tell by sight which was the cube and which the globe, before he touched them? It would depend on when he got his sight back. If he had to look immediately after opening his eyes, he would probably be in a bit of a ‘spin' trying to grasp the reality of the light. So probably not immediately. Now, if he had his sight for a few days and was able to adjust to the lights he may be able to ‘see' and understand lines, curves, etc. Depending on the IQ of the person he may be able to be a ‘logical' thinker and decide that it is similar to a square. It is plausible that he may have the ability to mentally vision a line, and what ever the blind person ‘saw' You now associates ‘that image' as the line. They may have some difficulty in adjusting to the environment and determining what shapes are what. So, it basically depends on a multiple number of possibilities, far too many to discuss here. Moral luck The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same. I wouldn't even classify this as luck. I would just see it as the person made a ‘decision' to change. They may have thought long and hard about the ‘path' they were on and decided that it was not a path that they wanted. They decided that there had to be something else. Several probably use this as an excuse to do bad things. Ultimately it is for the experience of the situation and/or individual. What defines Morality? It is all acts of Love just some love is perceived as ‘Evil'. For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck". Again, life is for the Experience. So, one person Chose to be one way or another. They might not remember that they made this decision but the decision was made. The challenge is how do you get someone to realize that they don't remember? The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control. Control is just something that You think You have. It is simply a viewpoint of someone saying did ‘I cause that?' to someone that is saying ‘Did you do that?' Also known as Cause and Effect. Those that are in effect of their environment will manifest horrible feelings on the side of Fear. Those that are aware that they are causing changes positively often reflect those feelings and provide a Loving environment. They will most likely portray the same feelings to others as it is quite often felt and remembered. The man on the street may not feel Love that well because he has been without it for so long. But he will feel Hate. It has been projected at him for a long time and he believes that he is all those things. This doesn't just happen in broken homes or poor neighborhoods this can happen in any home that doesn't project Love all ways. Existence of mathematical objects What are numbers, sets, groups, points, etc.? Are they real objects or are they simply relationships that necessarily exist in all structures? Hmmm someone has been thinking. This is part of being ‘aware', because you are a body and soul. Your soul is aware you have the ability to see things differently. Because of this you have decided to ‘define' things here on earth. Things had different names along the way but eventually it has settle on a shape that looks like 4. There here because You put them here. They exist simply because You believe that they do. Sorites paradox Otherwise known as the "heap paradox", the question regards how one defines a "thing." Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw? Definition is based on experience. If someone saw something for the fist time it was ‘half a bale' and another person said ‘yep'. That person now has defined his experience of a bale of hay. He now has a definition for bale although the definition does not fit someone else's viewpoint on their defined definition but nevertheless a ‘standard' exists that all things are then compared to. If so, is it still a bale of hay if you remove another straw? See above. If you continue this way, you will eventually deplete the entire bale of hay, and the question is: at what point is it no longer a bale of hay? As soon as the observed object no longer meets the visualized definition of a bale. There is no bale. There is now a memory of the bale. That exists in the mind for one to now compare to other experiences and determine if they ‘new' experience is more important than the last. This ultimately could redefine someone's definition of the word. 1. one million grains of sand is a heap Maybe a spoon full 2. a million grains of sand minus one is still a heap Or a spoon full Hard problem of consciousness The hard problem of consciousness is the question of what is consciousness and why do we have consciousness as opposed to being mindless zombies. You ready to hear the truth? The reason the consciousness exists because THAT is GOD. The Life Force of ALL Things. If it did not exist in You, the body would be dead. That's the easy answer. If you want another way to look at it, maybe something that is a little more ‘acceptable'. It is the Higher Self, the spirit within that we read about and sense but are just a little uncertain about. The real question is, which one of these ARE YOU going to Connect on. Hopefully these all tripped the shit out of your mind and made you go WHAT THE FUCK. Listen up, there is some shit that is happening that has to chill. We cannot be giving Weed a bad name and fucking with people's head. That is what keeps them from moving forward with Pot as a Fun Thing. Although I know you guys are having all sorts of fun doing it with people there is a bigger purpose to all of this. I hope you are ready to play the Game.
Explain to me how time is not linear. I believe like time is empty space but I don't know how to explain it. Like if God was and always will be. Time couldn't be linear. We just percieve it that way make any sense????/
Art objects Art is unfortunately whatever anyone claims it to be. For some people it is a masterpiece that takes decades and for others it is a urinal that is put on display (Marcel Duchamp). Personally, I am very critical of a lot of "art" and don't consider it to be worthy of the title. Doing something anyone could do and calling it art simply because "no one has done it yet" is fucking bullshit, I really hate it. I could go on for hours about this but I'll leave off by saying that as long as you personally consider it art, then it is, at least for you. Molyneux problem I don't really see this as a philosophical issue. I think if someone were exceptionally gifted with spatial reasoning they could do it and if they weren't then they couldn't. It just seems like a neurology thing to me. Moral luck I think there is an ideal universal standard of morals that we should all aspire towards. It is not fair to hold everyone to this standard though as we all have different situations. It's a tricky little situation, no doubt. Existence of mathematical objects This one blows my mind, I have no idea, but thinking about it usually gives me a braingasm Sorites paradox I think this question is just unimportant. It's simply a matter of how you define a "heap" or "pile." It can change from person to person. This is basically a question of vagueness and how much of it we should allow for in language/life. Hard problem of consciousness My personal favorite. I like to take a we-are-all-the-same-mind approach. I know there is zero evidence for it and it very well may not be true. Until we do know though, this one gives me a certain sense of comfort and I like it. Good idea for a post. + rep for you my man
Time is linear only in as much as that time requires two points to view change. It is because of these two points that 'time' can be viewed over a distance of space. If space did not exist there would be no time, or anything else.
1. He would be able to tell a difference. If you felt a cube, your hand would slide and eventually youd have to go onto a different face, but on a cube your hand meets no stop. Maybe he wouldnt know because he doesnt know "words" that are assigned to these but he damn sure would notice the difference between a cube and a globe lol. You should read up on Hellen Keller. 2. Your moral luck is very flawed. The moral luck you described is based off of human situations. People are born into poor situations because we have classes, but if everyone was equal would we have bad luck? We are animals, remember? Does a pack of lions have social classes? Are they poor because they dont have money? Hopefully you understand what i am trying to say. 3. Numbers are nothing more than a type of language to describe our universe. We assign universally accepted "numbers" for different problems and equations. I dont want to rant, because i think about this question all the time. 4. Simple, which is easier to say? a million or nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine? Once again, "things" are nothing more than our conscious trying to explain things. Without language, all we are left with is sight. Whats history when their is no language to describe things? 5. As i just said, our conscious is based on experience. We have conscious because it allows everything to have a history. What is history if humans are not here to uncover it? What is the universe without humans discovering how it works? Consciousness is special because it allows the universe to truly exist.
GONNA CONSULT THE CANNABIS ORACLE one sec... Wait.... OK! here goes No object could be of art. To claim an object has a meaning is the beyond the realm of reason Rather art is always existing in an infinity of ways and one simply becomes aware of it through observations in patterns or relations within the framework of illusory worlds and emotions. Molyneux problem This is not a problem.....of course he would be able to distinguish them without ever seeing them. Feeling is like a parallel process to sight. When the brain is thinking it thinks with neurons that can most efficiently think it at the time. The most sight like sensation blind people have is touch which can also create a sense of depth, height and width. The tactile and visual information are similar enough in function that either mechanism of the brain is a valid representation of dimensionality