An equation I derived with philosophical implications

[Rusty Shackleford]

If I make the statement "You can finesse a computer with a yak" and expect any sort of feedback, all I will get is "wtf? That makes absolutely no sense. That was pointless". Why? Because there is NOTHING you can do with that sentence. It is so far off into left field that you really aren't even sure where to begin fixing it, much less have any clue as to where it is intended to end!

Math is a language as well, and the OP mutilated that language, much the same as my above example. Expecting socktickler to come and "fix" something that is meant to be, at best, comedic nonsense is simply asking too much. His reply is truly the best that can be offered for it, outside of equivalent joking along a similar topic.

I wasn't referring to the actual "equation" in question but the ebb and flow of ideas and concepts as members batted the topic of conversation back and forth....

Regardless of the veracity of his equation, it stimulated discussion and got people talking, and isn't that what we're here for anyway?

 

[metalgod]

The unfortunate thing that I've discovered about life, is that 'purely original ideas' are abysmally rare these days.

Personally, I've never tried to think up anything original. Mostly because I realize that I don't have the brainpower for it. We've been a species long enough that most 'average' ideas have been thought of already.

But hey, you never know.

I don't mean purely original as in "nobody has ever thought this or something very close to this." I mean "I thought about it and I didn't get it from anyone else and am unaware if anyone else thought about that."

 

[metalgod]

And how does the fact that it reduces to 1 = 1 make it wrong or less significant?

You said I mutilated the math. 1 = 1, that's correct, not mutilated.

How can you be so sure that my equation doesn't uncover some philosophical implications of 1=1?

 

[MrMacphisto]

John Adams was a genius....

You mean Douglas Adams, but I agree...

Getting back to the original topic, it would seem that the premise of this concept is one somewhat reminiscent of "Platonic ideals."

Personally, I don't believe the quality of being conditional renders something arbitrary or effectively nonexistent, although the concept of identity can somewhat be construed as being a Platonic ideal itself.

There's the old nature vs. nurture argument when it comes to human behavior, and while it is true that humans are largely a product of their environments, I think the core of identity is more closely tied to genetic and hormonal factors.

 

[metalgod]

You mean Douglas Adams, but I agree...

Getting back to the original topic, it would seem that the premise of this concept is one somewhat reminiscent of "Platonic ideals."

Personally, I don't believe the quality of being conditional renders something arbitrary or effectively nonexistent, although the concept of identity can somewhat be construed as being a Platonic ideal itself.

There's the old nature vs. nurture argument when it comes to human behavior, and while it is true that humans are largely a product of their environments, I think the core of identity is more closely tied to genetic and hormonal factors.

I actually posted another thread on this forum entitled, "nature vs. nurture: a false dichotomy." I was more or less trying to say that the ideas I had regarding the implications of the equation suggest that conditional things do/do not exist simultaneously. To me, it suggests that there are multiple frames of reference at play, and while it seems (from my experience) that I can try to imagine different frames of reference, its impossible to do that simultaneously with the rational mind.

I suppose I would ask you a little more about your belief in genetics. I believe genetics are mistreated in their understanding as some isolated molecular phenomenon. We know in biology that every cell dies and replicates such that after a given period of time we will have entirely new cell bodies -- excluding cells that take on specialized function so you can keep all your body parts 🙂 . DNA are housed in the nucleus of cells and express themselves according to their tag pairs. However, interaction with our environment has an effect on our DNA and, importantly, DNA expression. Ever hear of genetic predispositions? Genetic predispositions basically reduce to an increased likelihood that changes in DNA expression will occur given certain environmental catalysts. Ever smoke? Smoking (or radiation if you like to nuke your cat) can cause DNA mutations...like cancer. Cancer is a DNA mutation.

Hormones are influenced by genetic expression and one's current physical condition. But remember when those cells die and replicate? Well, because the DNA is copied when replicated, the new cells will carry the same DNA...PLUS any environmental effects. Thus the cancer is continued, the gene expression is continued, and as a result one's behavior is reinforced. Behavior reinforcement (and yes, I recognize that behavior reinforcement also occurs through more immediate and specific processes) is important for hormonal makeup.

All I'm saying is that I think the environment and genes are entwined (e.g. genes are part of the environment itself and only as inseparable from it as anything else studied in isolation). I think it's interesting that depending on your frame of reference, this can either provide a really good argument for genetic/hormonal identity or a really good argument against it.

Fun stuff!

 

[MrMacphisto]

I actually posted another thread on this forum entitled, "nature vs. nurture: a false dichotomy." I was more or less trying to say that the ideas I had regarding the implications of the equation suggest that conditional things do/do not exist simultaneously. To me, it suggests that there are multiple frames of reference at play, and while it seems (from my experience) that I can try to imagine different frames of reference, its impossible to do that simultaneously with the rational mind.

I suppose I would ask you a little more about your belief in genetics. I believe genetics are mistreated in their understanding as some isolated molecular phenomenon. We know in biology that every cell dies and replicates such that after a given period of time we will have entirely new cell bodies -- excluding cells that take on specialized function so you can keep all your body parts 🙂 . DNA are housed in the nucleus of cells and express themselves according to their tag pairs. However, interaction with our environment has an effect on our DNA and, importantly, DNA expression. Ever hear of genetic predispositions? Genetic predispositions basically reduce to an increased likelihood that changes in DNA expression will occur given certain environmental catalysts. Ever smoke? Smoking (or radiation if you like to nuke your cat) can cause DNA mutations...like cancer. Cancer is a DNA mutation.

Hormones are influenced by genetic expression and one's current physical condition. But remember when those cells die and replicate? Well, because the DNA is copied when replicated, the new cells will carry the same DNA...PLUS any environmental effects. Thus the cancer is continued, the gene expression is continued, and as a result one's behavior is reinforced. Behavior reinforcement (and yes, I recognize that behavior reinforcement also occurs through more immediate and specific processes) is important for hormonal makeup.

All I'm saying is that I think the environment and genes are entwined (e.g. genes are part of the environment itself and only as inseparable from it as anything else studied in isolation). I think it's interesting that depending on your frame of reference, this can either provide a really good argument for genetic/hormonal identity or a really good argument against it.

Fun stuff!

It is true that environmental factors can affect DNA. It's even been proven that behaviors themselves can be genetically inherited. We're discovering more and more links between personality and genes.

I can agree that the line between nature and nurture is more blurred than previous assumptions have claimed.

Good discussion and thread.... 🙂