[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> TV that over 52% of Brazil is overweight.  That was unthinkable in the   
   >> 70s or the 80s, say.   
   >   
   > That's horrible! =(   
   >   
   > But I think it is a global phenomenon.   
      
   I agree.   
      
   > I think our increasingly sedentary lifestyles are to blame as well as   
   > the mindset of instant gratification which makes people want to   
   > achieve things with the minimum amount of energy necessary.   
   >   
   > I also think this ties in with the fertility crisis we spoke of   
   > before.   
      
   Yeah---the experts always include nutrition in their hypotheses.   
      
   > I am lucky! I do not like to exercise, but my wife forces me to. ;)   
      
   Doesn't sound like fun.  If you take a half hour walk each day, you   
   should probably be good.   
      
   I've reached a routine I've been looking for for a long time.  I wanted   
   to bike to the beach, walk and swim.  I was swimming in a gym pool.   
   It's not very good for me: the chlorine water doesn't feel right at all.   
   Sea water, on the other hand, is ideal.  I live in a part of the town   
   that's elevated.  When I bike to the beach, I must go down.  Coming back   
   is not easy.   
      
   >>>>> Hah... I'll take the challenge! ;) I agree, objectively speaking,   
   >>>>> that there is no reason.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No reason?  I think there is reason. :)   
   >>>   
   >>> But can you prove it, objectively?   
   >>   
   >> Objectively?  You mean kinda like a proof that the whole world with   
   >> stand in awe, like beautiful math proofs like Godel's Theorems?  I   
   >> believe I can't and likely wouldn't work on trying.  Why should I do   
   >   
   > What a shame! =(   
      
   I think it's a relief. :)   
      
   >> I think proofs are just constructions.  In math, for example, their role   
   >> is quite clear.  I don't even know what it would mean to prove that   
   >> there is reason.  I think there's reason because we seem to be doing   
   >> some stuff here that we decide to call reason and then, evidently, it   
   >> exists in the sense that we conclude it does and move on.   
   >   
   > You do sound like a philosopher to me! ;)   
      
   Lol.  I should probably take that as a compliment.  On a more serious   
   tone, I'd ask what is a philosopher to you.   
      
   >>> Or, another out, is the way of definition.  Depending on your   
   >>> definitions, it could of course be "made" objective. The question is   
   >>> then if I accept the definitions or not. =)   
   >>   
   >> So you seem to think that a proof is something like too hard to   
   >> resist---like a math proof.  I believe I don't think like that.  A proof   
   >> to me is a joint work between a writer and a reader.  If the reader that   
   >> catch the spirit, there is no proof.   
   >   
   > Based on a recent conversation, there can be proof, as in math, and   
   > evidence, as in empirical science. Since philosophy is not about   
   > empiricism, I'd say proof is probably it. There is of course a new   
   > branch of philosophy called practical philosophy, but to me, it seems   
   > more like a closet branch of sociology or psychology.   
      
   I had never heard of practical philosophy.   
      
   >> If someone /rejects/ an axiom I came up with or a definition I wrote,   
   >> then there's likely little friendship there.  Friendship exists when   
   >> people go along with you without judgment.  Rejecting /or accepting/   
   >> anything is judgment, which is not friendship.  When someone proposes me   
   >> anything, I look at it without accepting it or rejecting it.  (Unless   
   >> I'm a really bad mood!)   
   >   
   > There is a theory of truth called the consensus theory of   
   > truth. Sounds as if that might be what you are thinking about?   
      
   No.  Certainly not.  I have nothing to do with consensus.  Truth should   
   have nothing to do with consensus.  We can easily imagine an outrageous   
   group denying obvious facts.   
      
   I'm quite okay with the keeping ``truth'' undefined.  I may have some   
   idea in my mind that I think it's totally true.  Perhaps I can't get you   
   to assert the same.  So what?  Does that keep in doubt?  So?  I can't   
   see any problem with living life with a little doubt.  Every now and   
   then it's a good idea to hang a question mark on those things we've   
   taken for granted.  (Have you located where Russell said this?  I can't   
   even be sure it was him.)   
      
   >>> Agreed! But boy have I had endless email discussions with people who   
   >>> reject the proof of their senses.   
   >>   
   >> Excessive refinement in thinking?  They want a kind of super assured   
   >> certainty?  I think that's a waste of time.  It's not a waste of time to   
   >   
   > So do I. In 2500 years no such thing has been found, so I am quite   
   > happy and content to accept what my senses tell me. ;)   
      
   Our senses also do make mistakes.  And some things can't come directly   
   from the senses---what we see in a microscope, for example.   
      
   Even ``senses'' is a complicated word.  I met someone at the beach last   
   Saturday.  It's a person who lives very far from the beach---another   
   town.  For about a year and half, I've been thinking about (as I walk on   
   the beach as I always do) that I could someday meet that person by   
   chance on that beach.  But, of course, this is just fantasy because it   
   nearly makes no sense.  So, after my Saturday surprise, I was thinking   
   to myself---omg, how weird!  Do the things I imagine come true or is   
   this imagination a kind of premonition?  (Or just coincidence?)   
      
   This is not the first time this happens.  But many of the other past   
   coincidences (such as this one), I have been able to explain in a   
   special way, which I have been calling long-range planning.  I can spend   
   years imagining a certain situation (a little bit every now and then)   
   and then I end up putting myself in a position where I can live that   
   imagined situation.  I could then claim to have materialized that   
   situation or that somehow my imagination was having a glimpse of the   
   future.  But I actually call that long-range planning.   
      
   But the beach event of last Saturday seems very much outside of my   
   control.  The most I could do is to always go to beach, which in fact I   
   have been doing lately...  Still...  It still feels totally outside my   
   control.   
      
   >> care for your math proofs, say, or removing bugs from your programs and   
   >> so on.  But rejecting the senses as in I don't know if really exist or   
   >> I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.   
   >> That's when thought escapes from the leash.   
   >   
   > Agreed! That is why I do not care much for interpretations of quantum   
   > theory as well. Plenty of thoughts escaping from the leash there, and   
   > plenty of useless (in my opinion) speculation.   
      
   The case of quantum mechanics is a necessary one, though.  Yeah, surely   
   there's a lot of imagination there, but I think that's part of science.   
   Quantum mechanics is giving us great philosophical problems.  It's a   
   very hard read, but to see them all you could skim a quantum theory book   
   by descant.  Interpretation of quantum mechanics force us to make up   
   our minds about how we want to see the world.  The fun thing is no   
   matter which perspective we take, they're all problematic.   
      
   >>> I did a lot of good, of course, but his theories about dream   
   >>> interpretation and the psyche I think are no longer relevant. On the   
   >>> other hand, I am not a psychologist, so who am I to say? =)   
   >>   
   >> Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help   
   >> you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really   
   >> would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that   
   >> nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.   
   >   
   > I find the Dodo effect quite facsinating. It says that it is not the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)