[quote name='slayemin' timestamp='1330104881' post='4916265']
[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1330103821' post='4916257']
Since it's kinda in the area of this discussion, does anybody have a word that could be used for an idea, thought, or concept but the word doesn't necessarily suggest a dependance on a mind? I'm wondering because such a thing would play a pivotal part in my own interpretation of existence and it'd be nice to have a word that's already in accepted use.

How about "Model"?
[/quote]

Hmm. I suppose I was expecting a more exotic word or something, but that does seem to suit nicely and it is in pretty much everyone's vocabulary. It'd probably work for most conversations but I'm still not sure it's what I'm looking for.

I want to say something like, "The fundamental building block of all existence is <x>." Even if I'm wrong in my statement, I want <x> to be a word which can represent an idea, concept, or model without being tied to anything physical. The word would also be fairly appropriate for describing itself. For example a concept can be described using other concepts and if you were to try to further drill down into the makeup of what a concept actually is you could describe what you discover using concepts. If I say that I'm exploring the model or "existential model" of an apple I might successfully communicate what I'm trying to do. But I might need to use concepts to describe what an existential model is. And I don't think I could use models to describe what a concept is but I could use concepts to describe what a concept is. As such, I don't think I can say a model is as fundamental as a concept. I would say that "The fundamental building blocks of all existence are concepts," but it sort of suggests that you need a mind to generate those concepts. The word "model" worked for me at first because it seems to me that you don't need a person to exist in order for a model to exist. But since I'm thinking that a concept is more fundamental than a model, the word isn't quite appropriate in the statement I want to make.

Or am I going in pointless semantic circles?
Who cares about the existential properties of an apple, I'm hungry.

I'm sure this sort of thinking was probably done by someone else a long time ago. Is there maybe some recommended reading? (Maybe pm me some recommended reading if this thread gets closed first. I'd appreciate it.)
[/quote]

I think you have a problem with your requirements which is causing the trouble. First, you must ask the right question to get the answer you're looking for and the question must be framed in a way that it becomes apparent when it's been answered... which is why "What is the meaning of life?" is such a dumb question to ask -- it's too vaguely framed that there are many interpretations of what is being asked.

So, to literally answer your first statement: The fundamental building block of all existence is <matter and energy>.

But, its physical so that can't meet your requirement. Is an idea physical? I suppose you could say that it occurs in a brain which is itself physical, so "yes", it is physical in the sense that it's a electrical/chemical reaction between neurons. Our brains have a habit of generalizing facts about concrete things into abstractions. The abstractions don't actually exist, they're just invented concepts used to make observations about similarities between different concrete things. There is a bit of a problem with abstracting things into "classes", so I'll let Bertrand Russel explain the paradox of set theory. Maybe the word you're looking for is "Class" and you're running into russells paradox?

I know a girl who is very good at math and loves it. I asked her to post a picture of her fingers on facebook. I also asked another girl who I know hates math to measure the difference in length of her index finger compared to her ring finger and she said it was less than an 8th of an inch. Probably just random chance that it goes along with that study but still interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Found a study which links ring finger to index finger length to autism.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330112497' post='4916303']
I know a girl who is very good at math and loves it. I asked her to post a picture of her fingers on facebook. I also asked another girl who I know hates math to measure the difference in length of her index finger compared to her ring finger and she said it was less than an 8th of an inch. Probably just random chance that it goes along with that study but still interesting.

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias
[/quote]

I just asked those girls. I accept that it's not evidence but I found it interesting that it just so happened to be right in this case. I accept that there are likely many instances where it may be wrong. Also I'm not reading several studies and only picking the ones I think are right. Every single study I've read is in general agreement with my theory.

Are we to get links to Phrenology next?

Do some digging around on "influence of matriarchal vs patriarchal societies on gender roles in genetically linked indian villages".

There is a very interesting article out there about two villiages that are geneticly related, but have different social hierarchies (one matriarchal, one patriarchal) and shows how gender roles and stereotypical gender ability/inability is reversed between the two. Its all correlative, but offers an interesting example in that our common perception of differing ability between genders is likely wrong.

[quote name='slayemin' timestamp='1330112724' post='4916305']
[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330112497' post='4916303']
I know a girl who is very good at math and loves it. I asked her to post a picture of her fingers on facebook. I also asked another girl who I know hates math to measure the difference in length of her index finger compared to her ring finger and she said it was less than an 8th of an inch. Probably just random chance that it goes along with that study but still interesting.

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias
[/quote]

I just asked those girls. I accept that it's not evidence but I found it interesting that it just so happened to be right in this case. I accept that there are likely many instances where it may be wrong. Also I'm not reading several studies and only picking the ones I think are right. Every single study I've read is in general agreement with my theory.
[/quote]
Here's what you're doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

I also cringe at your incorrect use of the term "Theory". What you have is a hypothesis.

Generally speaking, if you make a universal generalization and a counter-example is found to refute your universal generalization, then your universal generalization is wrong. It doesn't matter how many links or studies you post supporting it (see Appeal to Authority). Wishful thinking will not make it so either. Ignoring the counter-example is intellectually dishonest (providing its valid). The right strategy for reasoning correctly is to re-examine the premises and the logical structure of your arguments and of the counter-arguments posed against it. Here's a quick review on how logic works:
If your premises are wrong, your logic is irrelevant.
If your premises are true but your logic is flawed, your conclusion is most likely* wrong. (*you might get lucky)
If your premises are true and your logic is correct, but another true premise can be added which results in a logical contradiction, then your conclusion is false.
If your premises are true and your logic is correct, and you have complete information, you are most likely* right (*give props to problem of induction).

In your case, you met two people who proved or disproved your hypothesis. That's sample size bias. Your premises are flawed and any logic that follows can be safely ignored.

Adding a counter-example is the addition of a true premise which results in a contradiction. If you're going to use other sources as the support for your argument (your premises, if you will), it is critical that the source can't be invalidated. You can't appeal to the authority of your source (look, its a government/science site!), you must appeal to the data and conclusions drawn by that source. The only merit a reputable source has going for it is that they usually practice a high level of rigour in data collection and use peer review to weed out possible sources of bias & error in their data & conclusions. If that's missing in your source, you should probably consider another one. Using first hand experience is highly suspect (I saw a UFO! Only aliens fly UFO's. Therefore, aliens exist!). Your essay on fracking is an excellent example of bad sources. The whole essay, regardless of how well it was written, can be thrown in the garbage because it has nothing to stand on. Learn how to vet your sources.

If you have the opportunity, I strongly recommend that you take an introductory class in logic (I make that recommendation to everyone, so don't feel singled out). A class in statistics would also be beneficial, as well as a class in critical thinking. I wouldn't consider any education complete without those classes.

[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1330104375' post='4916262']
[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1329944041' post='4915646']
The first thing any budding armchair philosopher should learn, is the complete lack of any link between correlation and causation.

Uhm, no..All (presumed) empirical knowledge is pure and unadulterated correlation, when you break it down.[/quote]
Perhaps I overstated that a littke. But when you come down to it, you cannot just interpret correlation as causation.
[/quote]
No, you cannot just interpret correlation as causation. But I dare you to come up with a presumed causual mechanism that is not reducable to correlation. To say that the two have nothing to do with one another is nonsense. Fashionable nonsense, I know, but nonsense nonetheless.

A correlation backed by a significant body of supporting evidence, and for which a diligent search has found no counter examples, sure - but that's not what SDF is demonstrating here.[/quote]SDF demonstrating anything whatsoever? Now youve really lost me .

If you are going to read one modern philosopher, make it Quine.[/quote]
Wittgenstein, Kripke, Quine... They are all pretty interesting, but they are still in that damnable scepticism tailspin that Hume launched. I'd honestly recommend Jacques Derrida (of whose deconstructionism Quine was a great detractor), over Quine.
[/quote]
Thats like recommending your favorite wine in a discussion about mathematics. Continental philosophy is poetry at best, but more accurately described as just a complete waste of time.

Thats like recommending your favorite wine in a discussion about mathematics. Continental philosophy is poetry at best, but more accurately described as just a complete waste of time.

I happen to feel the same way about Quine. Where exactly does the Hume -> Quine radical skepticism tradition get you in the end, apart from a whole lot of nothing?

It's so bad that Quine and Russell both decide to abandon the entire of Epistemology, and make some bullshit equivocation about it no longer being relevant in light of the scientific/psychology tools available to us.

[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1330120718' post='4916340']
Thats like recommending your favorite wine in a discussion about mathematics. Continental philosophy is poetry at best, but more accurately described as just a complete waste of time.

I happen to feel the same way about Quine. Where exactly does the Hume -> Quine radical skepticism tradition get you in the end, apart from a whole lot of nothing?

It's so bad that Quine and Russell both decide to abandon the entire of Epistemology, and make some bullshit equivocation about it no longer being relevant in light of the scientific/psychology tools available to us.
[/quote]
First of all, Hume is not a radical skeptic; but he is right to call into question our belief in induction; the belief that the future will resemble the past, and all that implies. Its not something that can logically be defended; but nonetheless, these are undoubtly the creatures that we simply are. Its a mode of thinking that has empirically been validated by natural selection, to put it in post-humean lingo.

Quine is pretty much a god for remarrying the analytic/synthetic, or 'matters of fact' and 'relations between ideas' (Kant directly copied these ideas from Hume and then raped them with his preposterous a-priorism, but his terminology is more succinct nonetheless). He is spot-on in noting that there are two kinds of analytic truth; those that can be related to the matters of facts, and those that are utterly vacuous and meaningless. Deduction is pointless without a context of material facts to draw conclusions about, and induction is nothing but the reverse process; trying to compress the world of facts into a body of theory that implies the same facts by deduction. Grounding knowledge in a-prioristic mental masturbation is horseshit; knowledge is something every oneyearold has; its in his brain, in the form of neural connections, and he got it from tinkering with the world around him. Not from silly attempts at reducing his set of axioms to some singular point of undenyability.

What does that get me? Epistemology that adds up, makes sense, and informs my daily decisions as a scientist. What did Derrida ever do for you?