Please note that the PhilPapers forums will be closed in March 2017 and replaced by a newer, more modern feature shortly thereafter. To minimize disruption, we have now disabled the creation of new threads. We encourage forum participants to wrap up discussions before March.

All Philosophy

 1 - 20 / 463 
[See also:
Upside down, round and round
Through the Looking Glass: Is the distinction between "real" and "virtual" image real?

Where should this thread be placed? Cognitive Sciences, along with my other threads about vision and other brain processes? Or by Physical Sciences, along with the countless myths on which contemporary science is built?

Light is a subjective phenomenon, only known to living creatures as far as we can tell. But it is also a physical phenomenon that stands at the basis of modern science. The way physicists understand light is since du Broglie (1925) the way they understand matter. From gravitational waves to an expanding universe, all depends on how we interpret light phenomena. To change the perception of light in science is to change science itself.
However tempting that maybe, my objectives are much less ambitious.

Allow me to start with a simple mirror and invite you to step inside with me. Who knows? Maybe we will encounter Alice in our journey. Just as long as w ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I've recently rewritten my critique of Alvin Plantinga's persuasive modal version of the argument for the existence of God. I would be pleased for readers to review this draft version and let me know if I've made any basic logical blunders.

In this essay, I uncover both the strengths and weaknesses of Plantinga's argument. I conclude that while the argument is probably formally valid, it is ultimately unsound. I argue that it's only non-analytic premise is not only false, but necessarily so. You can read the draft version of my essay at


[pagination is given as page number in pdf file/page number in original text]
Chapter One
The first lines sound very strange coming from the founder of wave theory since they consecrate the standing of the opposite view, Geometric Optics:
"As happens in all the sciences in which Geometry is applied to matter, the demonstrations concerning Optics are founded on truths drawn from experience." Huygens sees therefore no conflict between his new approach and Optics which are based on the behavior of particles of light. Einstein's wave-particle duality was certainly nothing new!
Huygens therefore does not doubt the validity of optical laws that say that light travels in straight lines, that the angles of incidence and reflection are equal or that refraction obeys the law of sines.
That is all and well, but what is the relation between those particles that make up light, and those waves that the same part ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Can someone explain to me how to make sense of direct realism, more precisely : how can one claim that to perceive is to have direct access to the object itself if we grant that perceiving is the end product of a certain pattern of neurons firing ?

I can understand direct realism on aristotelian grounds where an objective form leaves the object and penetrates the intellect, but if firing neurons are involved, aren't we obliged to say that the brain reconstructs the "thing in itself" ? (I understand also the problems involved with the theory of sense-data and the motivations that originate from physicalism : my question is purely regarding the constraints imposed by basic neurological ideas).
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Aristotle claimed that the supralunar realm was composed solely of ether. But did he believe the moon was also made only of ether or did he express doubt about this ? And if he did believe the moon was made solely of ether, how did he explain away the imperfections of the moon which can be seen by the naked eye ?

Dear Mr&Ms.

I don't know how can I start, then i said: Wittgenstein in TLP, said that time is work of chronometer.
I thought that this could be expressed by formula.I propose this formula below:

P/M = Tw   - This is time in which object "a" going way "z". It is simple and i said that is time of way.


If we want to have formula for time understood as working chronometer, we need minimum two objects, then:

 amp((P1/M1) + (P2/M2)) = Tc

In variables:

amp(x1/m1+...x2/m2+...xn/mn)/mo= Tc


P - speed of object
M- meters
amp - amplitude
Tw - Time of way ex. car go in road in 40 sec.
Tc - Time understood as chronometer ex. 1 sec or quantum of actions
x - speed of object
m - distance
mo - distance between objects

Configuration is rearrengment objects in space. When appear move, then time appear too, but to came time,we need space, object and move. "Move" came when object change his position in space under the influence of power.

With regards and hope for comments,
P. A. Grabowski

Dear Ms.&Mr.

On my own calculate and experiments power of gravitation is expressed by:

M+M/2M - 5% = 2,5%M + 2,5%M = PG

M - Mass
PG - Power of gravitation.

It is not dynamic power but power of attraction.

I stand below, following hypothesis:

The force of gravity is 2.5% by weight.
100 kg can achieved with power 2.5 kgN
100 kg attracts with 2.5 kgN
When the force is balanced because of the distance, the body gravitate to each other as long as they are rotated.
As a result of fission  atom arises 2.5% of its mass calculated for example, in kgN
To implosion followed the mass that is reduced by fission would begin to attract, but with the outbreak of falling apart. As a result of the implosion would yield more energy than the result of cleavage.
The star which burns up and make the implosion, turns into a supernova, which is 2.5% of its weight. Supernova could be star around witch is bigger pressure, and fission give us implosion.
The star, who is falls and will be split turns into a black ho ... (read more)

Did you know that many non-Christians celebrate New Year? Of course for them, and for many Christians also, it is only a happy calender event, and usually only "westernized" people really care about it. Still, it is another international aspect of a secularization process that started a very long time ago. We are very far from Anno Domini, or the Year of our Lord. But when have people ever rejected an opportunity to party? After all, they still celebrate their own religious events, including their own New Year, very often in a very different way. More traditional.

Happy New Year.

The issue of two particles communicating with each other faster than light has divided great minds like Einstein and Bohr. It is also the most spectacular proof that Nature cannot be understood with common sense. Two particles that seem to communicate with each other beyond space and time! That is the stuff of legends and myths, and still, it looks like an undeniable scientific truth confirmed aga ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

The Michelson Myth

"Some of the current applications of optical interferometry are accurate measurements of distances, displacements, and vibrations; tests of optical systems; studies of gas flows and plasmas; studies of surface topography; measurements of temperature, pressure, and electrical and magnetic fields; rotation sensing; high resolution spectroscopy, and laser frequency measurements. Applications being explored include high-speed all-optical logic and the detection of gravitational waves. There is little doubt that, in the near future, many more will be found."
(P. Hariharan "Basics of INTERFEROMETRY", 2007)

You know how a full moon seems to follow you everywhere you go? Well, you can recreate the same eerie experience with a piece of cardboard in which you have made a small hole. Now all you need is a window pane and a light source. I can use the street lamps I can see from my kitchen or from the living room. If I place the cardboard against the glass in such a way that I can ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


I'm not sure whether what I wrote is correct, but this is my problem. Galileo make thought experiment with gravitation and calculate speed of gravitation for earth. Below my calculate. Please if You can, check it and surrender criticism.

Body weight has an effect on gravity, the bodies are heavier, the more they attracted. The sum of their masses are coupled is reduced by 5% from the sum of the bodies which are odalone from each other and interact with each other. Earth's gravity should be relativized to the weight of the body should also be taken into account air resistance. Bedding is falling more slowly than stone, single wash floating on the wind. The body is lighter, the gravity is less, because the same body separate from the planet, also gravitates to the planet. (M + O) / (V / M) = X

Dictionary: M - Mass of attracting bodies, O - Distance, V - speed attraction, M - Mass of attracting bodies, X force of gravity.

Under this link why 5% unfortunately just in polish.

Warm reg ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Before the fact, we know based on what has been written, an example might be knowledge of the law and does not commit crimes because of conceptual knowledge. There it is based on experience already przeżytym but on the intellect, namely on this, what not to do in order not to be convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. Rights can learn to read codes that have warned us about what not to do this in ten same way, we can learn a vocabulary of language, call the prior knowledge, knowledge BEFORE the fact. Hindsight is based on our own experience and others. Drawing on the knowledge of this is written, we draw knowledge from others who have already experienced something, it is passed. Hindsight, IS OUR personal knowledge without relying on prior experience. Knowledge Based on previous experience we can verify and, if I upgrade, so how do scientists when previous experience does not agree with the observations, then seek an explanation and often expand or narrow theories. The prior knowledge IS ... (read more)

The psychule is a proposed model for a fundamental type of event related to mind/sentience/consciousness. The term "psychule" is meant to be analogous to the term "molecule" as the fundamental unit of a substance, except that a psychule is not a substance but an event.  I would like to say the proposed model describes the fundamental unit of consciousness (as in the subject line), but for many philosophers the term "consciousness" brings along certain expectations which tend to be missing from the simplest requirements of the model.  Similarly with the term "sentience".  Therefore I have coined (I think) a new term to describe the fundamental unit.  I will then claim that any sentient or conscious event is a psychule, and leave it to future generations to decide whether the definitions of consciousness and sentience should be extended to include each and every psychule.

As mentioned, a psychule is an event.  More specifically, a psychule is a pattern recognition type of event. I use th ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What you can think about comes from what you have observed.
You think about angels. What are angels?

An angel can be that sweet person, something that makes you happy, etc. It's an adjective. 

If you think of something which you think doesn't exist in the physical world or have not yet observed, the fact that you can think about it, shows that it is a assembly of selected parts of what has already been observed and exists.
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Is awareness specific to specific parts of an experience?
When we are aware of seeing an apple, are we aware of all other sounds, shapes, tastes, etc which occur simultaneously?
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Since 1998 I carry out independent research on the logic operators and in particular of "if then" and "if and only if then". Given my difficulty when a student, and the difficulties of my students to understand mainly the operator "if then" and the concepts of sufficient condition and necessary condition in it implicit, and given my passion for logic, neuroscience and psychology, I spent over 20 years researching how these concepts arise in reality, and how our minds create their abstract models.
The study of the 4 cards test of Peter Wason (1966), is an excellent didactic example to explain the logical infrastructure of sufficient condition, and always use with my students. But in spite of literary research, not having met a specimen, equally excellent in explaining the necessary condition, I started a thorough study on the issue that has led me not only to devise a new specific test for the necessary condition, but also to find out what I think is a millenary gap in on the o ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Although there are quite a few lists of argumentation fallacies on the web I can't find much about these two:
Julian Baggini describes to argumentation fallacy "If I don’t do it somebody else will" at

I don't find it anywhere else. Does that fallacy have a special name?

2) Also I can't find the fallacy: "If you don't show me an alternative for my doing you can't criticise it."

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Some words in my paper:

T(hj|ei)--fuzzy truth function of a predicate hj.

T(hj)--logical probability or  average thue-value of a predicate hj.

Popper defined Testing severity and Verisimilitude (1963/2005, 526, 534). Since Logical Probability and Statistical Probability are not well distinguished by him, his definitions are not satisfactory. The author suggests defining log [1/T(hj)] as testing severity, and T(hj|ei)/T(hj) as verisimilitude. In terms of Likelihood method, P(ei| hi is true)/P(ei) =T(hj|ei)/T(hj) is also called standard likelihood. So, we may say Semantic information = log (Standard likelihood) = log (Verisimilitude)=Testing severity - Relative deviation
 If negative verisimilitude for lies or wrong predictions is expected, one may also define verisimilitude by log [T(hj|ei)/T(hj)]. 

The figure 8 in the paper shows how positive and negative degrees of believe affect thruthlikeness. 

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

 1 - 20 / 463