Question:
I have a question. Although I hardly ever fail with women, when I'm first meeting a girl and teasing her and being cocky but funny, they respond well and seem to be interested in me.
However,when I ask for the number, lots (not necessarily most, but a good number) of girls initially say"Oh, I've lost my phone yesterday." Or, " You know what? Why don't you give me your number instead?" Or, " I don't have a cellphone actually, I'm sorry."
However, when I give a cocky response, or even if i just say "yeah right", they IMMEDIATELY concede and give me their number... and lo and behold, it works.
I'm just wondering why they make up those lies if they're going to give in INSTANTLY. I wouldn't think that this was too important if it happened once or twice, but there seems to be a trend or pattern here. What's going on?
Reply:
I'm really glad that you asked this particular question because it's hard for a lot of guys to believe that this kind of thing could be real (or at least so common).
My translation of what you just asked is: "Why do women play games when you ask for their number?"
In response to your question, I'm going to give you a two-pronged answer:
1) The psychology of what's going on here.
2) The technique: How I deal with this particular situation, and others like it.
Here's the story which has a psychology lesson to it.
There is this guy I know that had a particularly interesting technique for hiring people.
Here's what he did: After interviewing people for the position, he'd call back the one he liked BEST, and say:"I wanted to call and thank you for applying for this job, but I just don't think you're the right person for the position"... and then he'd listen.
If the person said, "OK, well thank you" he'd just hang up and call the next favorite one. On the other hand, if they said, "Wait a minute, I am the best person for the position, I'm sure of it" etc. he'd say, "Well, tell me more.Why do you think so?" I actually listened to him do this live on the speaker phone one day in his office with a woman that he had interviewed. Sure enough, when he said"Well, I just don't think you're the right person..." she answered with "Why not? I am thebest..." etc. And, sure enough, he hired her.
The point here is that in a hiring situation,there are usually many people applying. An interviewer needs to have ways of quickly filtering through and disqualifying theunacceptable candidates. And a SAVVY interviewer will have ways of quickly finding the EXCEPTIONAL candidates.
This was a great technique for doing just that.
THE TECHNIQUE
The conclusion of it is that ATTRACTIVE WOMEN ARE APPROACHED ALL THE TIME. THEY NEED QUICK, EASY WAYS TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE EITHER THE REAL DEAL OR A WUSS THAT GIVES UP AT THE FIRST SIGN OF RESISTANCE.
Hint: Polite men that say, "Oh OK, sorry for bothering you..." or "OK, here's my number, call me..." are not SEXY or ATTRACTIVE.
On the other hand, men that say (Some of my favorites): "Oh, it's OK... you don't have a phone? That's nothing to be embarrassed about" or "And you expect me to believe that?" in a cocky, funny way instantly telegraph the message: "I'm not a girly-man that gives up easily, and I see through your games. I don't buy it" are VERY ATTRACTIVE. It just says all the right things.
So, here are a few things to remember:
1) Attractive women are approached all the time by men, and are constantly being asked for their number.
2) If you were a woman who is getting asked for your phone number forty seven times a day, you'd probably make excuses yourself.
3) The excuses and "Why don't you give me yours" type responses weed out about 95% of the losers that have no spine and no persistence.
4) If you're READY for this in advance, and you KNOW what you're going to say and do when it happens, AND you don't answer with a lame, needy,wuss response, you increase your chances of getting the number DRAMATICALLY.
5) Confident, cocky, funny responses are a great way to power through these situations.
Let's face it:
Attractive women get a lot of attention. They're not looking for a guy that throws himself at her, and then gives up easily.They're looking for a guy that has all kinds of self confidence, and sees right through her games... to the point where he disarms her and walks away with the digits.
Think about it.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Interpersonal attraction.
-Interpersonal Attraction-
Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships. In a colloquial sense, interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, love, dislike, or hate someone. Interpersonal attraction can be thought of as a force acting between two people tending to draw them together, and resisting their separation. According to a personality psychologists' view, interpersonal attraction is a person's qualities that tend to attract by appealing to another person's desires.
When measuring interpersonal attraction, one must refer to the qualities of the attracted as well as the qualities of the attractor to achieve predictive accuracy. The study of interpersonal attraction is a major area of study in social psychology. They suggest that to determine attraction, personality and situation must be taken into account. Repulsion is also a factor in the process of interpersonal attraction, one's conception of "attraction" to another can vary from extreme attraction to extreme repulsion.
Many factors leading to interpersonal attraction have been studied. The most frequently studied are:
Physical attractiveness
Proximity
Familiarity
Similarity
Reciprocal liking
Reinforcement
Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships. In a colloquial sense, interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, love, dislike, or hate someone. Interpersonal attraction can be thought of as a force acting between two people tending to draw them together, and resisting their separation. According to a personality psychologists' view, interpersonal attraction is a person's qualities that tend to attract by appealing to another person's desires.
When measuring interpersonal attraction, one must refer to the qualities of the attracted as well as the qualities of the attractor to achieve predictive accuracy. The study of interpersonal attraction is a major area of study in social psychology. They suggest that to determine attraction, personality and situation must be taken into account. Repulsion is also a factor in the process of interpersonal attraction, one's conception of "attraction" to another can vary from extreme attraction to extreme repulsion.
Many factors leading to interpersonal attraction have been studied. The most frequently studied are:
Physical attractiveness
Proximity
Familiarity
Similarity
Reciprocal liking
Reinforcement
Monday, June 25, 2007
Misconceptions and logical fallacies pertaining to randomness.
Popular perceptions of randomness are frequently wrong, based on logical fallacies. The following is an attempt to identify the source of such fallacies and correct the logical errors.
The Gambler's Fallacy.
The gambler's fallacy is a formal fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events.
The gambler's fallacy gets its name from the fact that, where the random event is the throw of a dice or the spin of a roulette wheel, gamblers will risk money on their belief in "a run of luck" or a mistaken understanding of "the law of averages". It often arises because a similarity between random processes is mistakenly interpreted as a predictive relationship between them. (For instance, two fair dice are similar in that they each have the same chances of yielding each number - but they are independent in that they do not actually influence one another.)
A more subtle version of the fallacy is that an "interesting" (non-random looking) outcome is "unlikely" (eg that a sequence of "1,2,3,4,5,6" in a lottery result is less likely than any other individual outcome). Even apart from the debate about what constitutes an "interesting" result, this can be seen as a version of the gambler's fallacy because it is saying that a random event is less likely to occur if the result, taken in conjunction with recent events, will produce an "interesting" pattern.
The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5×0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.
Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2)5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."
This is the fallacious step in the argument. If the coin is fair, then by definition the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never less (or more). While a run of five heads is only 1 in 32 (0.03125), it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. The probability of five consecutive heads is the same as four successive heads followed by one tails. Tails is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability relied on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. This kind of logic would only work, if we had to guess all the tosses' results 'before' they are carried out. Let's say we are gambling on a HHHHH result, that is likely to constitute the significantly lesser chance to succeed.
Here are some other examples:
1.
What is the probability of flipping 21 heads in a row, with a fair coin? (Answer: 1 in 2,097,152 = approximately 0.000000477.) What is the probability of doing it, given that you have already flipped 20 heads in a row? (Answer: 0.5.)
2.
Are you more likely to win the lottery jackpot by choosing the same numbers every time or by choosing different numbers every time? (Answer: Either strategy is equally likely to win.)
3.
Are you more or less likely to win the lottery jackpot by picking the numbers which won last week, or picking numbers at random? (Answer: Either strategy is equally likely to win.)
(This does not mean that all possible choices of numbers within a given lottery are equally good.
While the odds of winning may be the same regardless of which numbers are chosen, the expected payout is not, because of the possibility of having to share that jackpot with other players. A rational gambler might attempt to predict other players' choices and then deliberately avoid these numbers.)
A number is "due"
This argument says that "since all numbers will eventually appear in a random selection, those that have not come up yet are 'due' and thus more likely to come up soon". This logic is only correct if applied to a system where numbers that come up are removed from the system, such as when playing cards are drawn and not returned to the deck. It's true, for example, that once a jack is removed from the deck, the next draw is less likely to be a jack and more likely to be some other card. However, if the jack is returned to the deck, and the deck is thoroughly reshuffled, there is an equal chance of drawing a jack or any other card the next time. The same truth applies to any other case where objects are selected independently and nothing is removed from the system after each event, such as a die roll, coin toss or most lottery number selection schemes. A way to look at it is to note that random processes such as throwing coins don't have memory, making it impossible for past outcomes to affect the present and future.
A number is "cursed"
This argument is almost the reverse of the above, and says that numbers which have come up less often in the past will continue to come up less often in the future. A similar "number is 'blessed'" argument might be made saying that numbers which have come up more often in the past are likely to do so in the future. This logic is only valid if the roll is somehow biased and results don't have equal probabilities — for example, with weighted dice. If we know for certain that the roll is fair, then previous events have no influence over future events.
Note that in nature, unexpected or uncertain events rarely occur with perfectly equal frequencies, so learning which events are likely to have higher probability by observing outcomes makes sense. What is fallacious is to apply this logic to systems which are specially designed so that all outcomes are equally likely — such as dice, roulette wheels, and so on.
The Gambler's Fallacy.
The gambler's fallacy is a formal fallacy. It is the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events.
The gambler's fallacy gets its name from the fact that, where the random event is the throw of a dice or the spin of a roulette wheel, gamblers will risk money on their belief in "a run of luck" or a mistaken understanding of "the law of averages". It often arises because a similarity between random processes is mistakenly interpreted as a predictive relationship between them. (For instance, two fair dice are similar in that they each have the same chances of yielding each number - but they are independent in that they do not actually influence one another.)
A more subtle version of the fallacy is that an "interesting" (non-random looking) outcome is "unlikely" (eg that a sequence of "1,2,3,4,5,6" in a lottery result is less likely than any other individual outcome). Even apart from the debate about what constitutes an "interesting" result, this can be seen as a version of the gambler's fallacy because it is saying that a random event is less likely to occur if the result, taken in conjunction with recent events, will produce an "interesting" pattern.
The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5×0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.
Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2)5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."
This is the fallacious step in the argument. If the coin is fair, then by definition the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never less (or more). While a run of five heads is only 1 in 32 (0.03125), it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. The probability of five consecutive heads is the same as four successive heads followed by one tails. Tails is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability relied on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. This kind of logic would only work, if we had to guess all the tosses' results 'before' they are carried out. Let's say we are gambling on a HHHHH result, that is likely to constitute the significantly lesser chance to succeed.
Here are some other examples:
1.
What is the probability of flipping 21 heads in a row, with a fair coin? (Answer: 1 in 2,097,152 = approximately 0.000000477.) What is the probability of doing it, given that you have already flipped 20 heads in a row? (Answer: 0.5.)
2.
Are you more likely to win the lottery jackpot by choosing the same numbers every time or by choosing different numbers every time? (Answer: Either strategy is equally likely to win.)
3.
Are you more or less likely to win the lottery jackpot by picking the numbers which won last week, or picking numbers at random? (Answer: Either strategy is equally likely to win.)
(This does not mean that all possible choices of numbers within a given lottery are equally good.
While the odds of winning may be the same regardless of which numbers are chosen, the expected payout is not, because of the possibility of having to share that jackpot with other players. A rational gambler might attempt to predict other players' choices and then deliberately avoid these numbers.)
A number is "due"
This argument says that "since all numbers will eventually appear in a random selection, those that have not come up yet are 'due' and thus more likely to come up soon". This logic is only correct if applied to a system where numbers that come up are removed from the system, such as when playing cards are drawn and not returned to the deck. It's true, for example, that once a jack is removed from the deck, the next draw is less likely to be a jack and more likely to be some other card. However, if the jack is returned to the deck, and the deck is thoroughly reshuffled, there is an equal chance of drawing a jack or any other card the next time. The same truth applies to any other case where objects are selected independently and nothing is removed from the system after each event, such as a die roll, coin toss or most lottery number selection schemes. A way to look at it is to note that random processes such as throwing coins don't have memory, making it impossible for past outcomes to affect the present and future.
A number is "cursed"
This argument is almost the reverse of the above, and says that numbers which have come up less often in the past will continue to come up less often in the future. A similar "number is 'blessed'" argument might be made saying that numbers which have come up more often in the past are likely to do so in the future. This logic is only valid if the roll is somehow biased and results don't have equal probabilities — for example, with weighted dice. If we know for certain that the roll is fair, then previous events have no influence over future events.
Note that in nature, unexpected or uncertain events rarely occur with perfectly equal frequencies, so learning which events are likely to have higher probability by observing outcomes makes sense. What is fallacious is to apply this logic to systems which are specially designed so that all outcomes are equally likely — such as dice, roulette wheels, and so on.
Randomness and how it is associated with free will.(Theological Issue)
The word random is used to express lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability in non-scientific parlance. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution.
The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation.
Randomness has an important place in science, philosophy, and religion.
Randomness and how it is associated with free will.(Theological Issue)
Randomness has been associated closely with the notion of free will in a number of ways. If a person has free will (as defined by incompatibilists), then his actions will be unpredictable by other people and will contain an element of irreducible indeterminacy. By religious or supernatural conceptions of incompatibilist free will, such human actions may be the only source of randomness in the universe. (According to the naturalistic conception, by contrast, incompatibilist free will arises from pre-existing indeterminacy in physical laws and is not necessarily a unique feature of humans. According to the compatibilist conception, there is no randomness and humans are merely too complex to be easily predicted).
Some theologians have attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction between an omniscient deity, or a first cause, and free will using randomness. Discordians have a strong belief in randomness and unpredictability. Buddhist philosophy states that any event is the result of previous events (karma) and as such there is no such thing as a random event nor a 'first' event.
Martin Luther, the forefather of Protestantism, believed that there was nothing random based on his understanding of the Bible. As an outcome of his understanding of randomness he strongly felt that free will was limited to low level decision making by humans. Therefore, when someone sins against another, decision making is only limited to how one responds preferably through forgiveness and loving actions. He believed based on Biblical scripture that humans cannot will themselves, faith, salvation, sanctification, or other gifts from God. Additionally, the best people could do according to his understanding was not sin but they fall short and free will cannot achieve this objective. Thus, in his view absolute free will and unbounded randomness are severely limited to the point that behaviors may even be patterned or ordered and not random. This is a point emphasized by the field of behavioral psychology.
Further inspection into the origins of Judeo/Christian religion indicates one view that there is a very strict understanding of predestination excluding any possibility of random events. At the time of Christ the Qumran, a tribe outside of Jerusalem by the Dead Sea, had scrolls that documented their very strict deterministic worldview. Elements of this worldview are found in modern Christianity. For example, the King James and NIV Bible tell humans that God knew the believers before the foundations of time, ECC 3 is about God's perfect timing, and Daniel, Ezkiel, and Revelation tell humans that the end state is already determined. Moreover, the Judeo\Christian Bible indicates that there is a purpose to everything which is found in ECC 3 also.
These notions and more in Christianity often lend to a highly deterministic worldview and that the concept of random events is not possible. Especially, if purpose is part of this universe then randomness, by definition, is not possible. This is also a foundation for Intelligent Design which is counter to Evolution that remarks the natural emerges based on random selection.
Donald Knuth, a Stanford computer scientist and Christian commentator, remarks that he finds pseudo-random numbers useful and applies them with purpose. He then extends this thought to God who may use randomness with purpose to allow free will to certain degrees. Knuth believes that God is interested in peoples decisions and limited free will allows a certain degree of decision making. Knuth, based on his understanding of quantum computing and entanglement, comments that God exerts dynamic control over the world without violating any laws of physics suggesting that what appears to be random to humans may not, in fact, be so random.
C.S. Lewis, a 20th century Christian philosopher, discussed free will at length. On the matter of human will, Lewis wrote: "God willed the free will of men and angels in spite of His knowledge that it could lead in some cases to sin and thence to suffering: i.e., He thought freedom worth creating even at that price." In his radio broadcast Lewis indicated that God "gave [humans] free will. He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love…" Lewis, believing in free will, had an indirect belief in randomness by setting up a dependency of love on free will.
Matt Ridley, a zoology doctorate and science writer, writes how humans, a paradoxical creature, can be simultaneously free-willed and motivated by instinct and culture. Ridley suggests that experience and genes have interplay. In his writings he explores DNA as a pattern makers template, not as a blueprint for life, and points to causes of free will as consequences to genetic outcomes. Ridley, in his musings, suggests that the evolutionary force he thinks shapes the contents of our genes is the Genome Organizing Device, or GOD. In Ridley's mind GOD is the pattern maker. Thus, Ridley literally defies natural selection indicating that sources of randomness include God and human decision making.
However, when we acknowledged that an Omniscient God exist, I would be right in concluding that God would indeed know our every moves and thoughts, even before it comes to our own understanding or interpretation of our very actions. The causes and reasons would be know to God beforehand. If this is indeed true, then it would be perfectly logical to conclude that free will does not exist. God knows everything ----God knows our thoughts, our deeds(the *how* and *why* we do things), knows to a degree of absolute certainty on our decisions or our reactions in every single possible scenario---- There is no free will.
We could say that if God does not literally interfere with our decisions then our free will still stands. However, I disagree with that statement. When you have an absolute certainty in predicting another individual's actions and thoughts, to you...he is no different from a robot that is already programmed. However, as long as he does not know that you are able to predict his actions and thoughts to a degree of absolute certainty, he would still consider he has free will.
I personally believe that in the eyes of God, everything is destined. But in the eyes of man, destiny is in your own hands.
The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias or correlation.
Randomness has an important place in science, philosophy, and religion.
Randomness and how it is associated with free will.(Theological Issue)
Randomness has been associated closely with the notion of free will in a number of ways. If a person has free will (as defined by incompatibilists), then his actions will be unpredictable by other people and will contain an element of irreducible indeterminacy. By religious or supernatural conceptions of incompatibilist free will, such human actions may be the only source of randomness in the universe. (According to the naturalistic conception, by contrast, incompatibilist free will arises from pre-existing indeterminacy in physical laws and is not necessarily a unique feature of humans. According to the compatibilist conception, there is no randomness and humans are merely too complex to be easily predicted).
Some theologians have attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction between an omniscient deity, or a first cause, and free will using randomness. Discordians have a strong belief in randomness and unpredictability. Buddhist philosophy states that any event is the result of previous events (karma) and as such there is no such thing as a random event nor a 'first' event.
Martin Luther, the forefather of Protestantism, believed that there was nothing random based on his understanding of the Bible. As an outcome of his understanding of randomness he strongly felt that free will was limited to low level decision making by humans. Therefore, when someone sins against another, decision making is only limited to how one responds preferably through forgiveness and loving actions. He believed based on Biblical scripture that humans cannot will themselves, faith, salvation, sanctification, or other gifts from God. Additionally, the best people could do according to his understanding was not sin but they fall short and free will cannot achieve this objective. Thus, in his view absolute free will and unbounded randomness are severely limited to the point that behaviors may even be patterned or ordered and not random. This is a point emphasized by the field of behavioral psychology.
Further inspection into the origins of Judeo/Christian religion indicates one view that there is a very strict understanding of predestination excluding any possibility of random events. At the time of Christ the Qumran, a tribe outside of Jerusalem by the Dead Sea, had scrolls that documented their very strict deterministic worldview. Elements of this worldview are found in modern Christianity. For example, the King James and NIV Bible tell humans that God knew the believers before the foundations of time, ECC 3 is about God's perfect timing, and Daniel, Ezkiel, and Revelation tell humans that the end state is already determined. Moreover, the Judeo\Christian Bible indicates that there is a purpose to everything which is found in ECC 3 also.
These notions and more in Christianity often lend to a highly deterministic worldview and that the concept of random events is not possible. Especially, if purpose is part of this universe then randomness, by definition, is not possible. This is also a foundation for Intelligent Design which is counter to Evolution that remarks the natural emerges based on random selection.
Donald Knuth, a Stanford computer scientist and Christian commentator, remarks that he finds pseudo-random numbers useful and applies them with purpose. He then extends this thought to God who may use randomness with purpose to allow free will to certain degrees. Knuth believes that God is interested in peoples decisions and limited free will allows a certain degree of decision making. Knuth, based on his understanding of quantum computing and entanglement, comments that God exerts dynamic control over the world without violating any laws of physics suggesting that what appears to be random to humans may not, in fact, be so random.
C.S. Lewis, a 20th century Christian philosopher, discussed free will at length. On the matter of human will, Lewis wrote: "God willed the free will of men and angels in spite of His knowledge that it could lead in some cases to sin and thence to suffering: i.e., He thought freedom worth creating even at that price." In his radio broadcast Lewis indicated that God "gave [humans] free will. He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love…" Lewis, believing in free will, had an indirect belief in randomness by setting up a dependency of love on free will.
Matt Ridley, a zoology doctorate and science writer, writes how humans, a paradoxical creature, can be simultaneously free-willed and motivated by instinct and culture. Ridley suggests that experience and genes have interplay. In his writings he explores DNA as a pattern makers template, not as a blueprint for life, and points to causes of free will as consequences to genetic outcomes. Ridley, in his musings, suggests that the evolutionary force he thinks shapes the contents of our genes is the Genome Organizing Device, or GOD. In Ridley's mind GOD is the pattern maker. Thus, Ridley literally defies natural selection indicating that sources of randomness include God and human decision making.
However, when we acknowledged that an Omniscient God exist, I would be right in concluding that God would indeed know our every moves and thoughts, even before it comes to our own understanding or interpretation of our very actions. The causes and reasons would be know to God beforehand. If this is indeed true, then it would be perfectly logical to conclude that free will does not exist. God knows everything ----God knows our thoughts, our deeds(the *how* and *why* we do things), knows to a degree of absolute certainty on our decisions or our reactions in every single possible scenario---- There is no free will.
We could say that if God does not literally interfere with our decisions then our free will still stands. However, I disagree with that statement. When you have an absolute certainty in predicting another individual's actions and thoughts, to you...he is no different from a robot that is already programmed. However, as long as he does not know that you are able to predict his actions and thoughts to a degree of absolute certainty, he would still consider he has free will.
I personally believe that in the eyes of God, everything is destined. But in the eyes of man, destiny is in your own hands.
Ontology.
In philosophy, ontology is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. It seeks to describe or posit the basic categories and relationships of being or existence to define entities and types of entities within its framework.
Ontology can be said to study conceptions of reality; and, for the sake of distinction, at least to the extent to which its counterpart, epistemology can be represented as being a search for answers to the questions "What do you know?" and "How do you know it?", ontology can be represented as a search for an answer to the question "What are the knowable things?".
Some philosophers, notably of the Platonic school, contend that all nouns refer to entities. Other philosophers contend that some nouns do not name entities but provide a kind of shorthand way of referring to a collection (of either objects or events). In this latter view, mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared interactions, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity.
Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and God, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy.
Ontology has one basic question: "What is there?" Different philosophers provide different answers to this question.
One common approach is to divide the extant entities into groups called "categories". However, these lists of categories are also quite different from one another. It is in this latter sense that ontology is applied to such fields as theology, information science and artificial intelligence.
Further examples of ontological questions include:
What is existence?
Is existence a property?
What does it mean to say something does not exist?
Are sentences expressing the existence or non-existence of something properly called propositions?
What is a physical object? Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
What constitutes the identity of an object?
When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?
What features are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental, attributes of a given object?
What are an object's properties or relations and how are they related to the object itself?
What could it mean to say that non-physical objects (such as a time, souls) exist?
Why are we here? Why does anything exist, rather than nothingness? (Though, according to some, these questions may be more in the realm of cosmology.)
Ontology can be said to study conceptions of reality; and, for the sake of distinction, at least to the extent to which its counterpart, epistemology can be represented as being a search for answers to the questions "What do you know?" and "How do you know it?", ontology can be represented as a search for an answer to the question "What are the knowable things?".
Some philosophers, notably of the Platonic school, contend that all nouns refer to entities. Other philosophers contend that some nouns do not name entities but provide a kind of shorthand way of referring to a collection (of either objects or events). In this latter view, mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared interactions, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity.
Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and God, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy.
Ontology has one basic question: "What is there?" Different philosophers provide different answers to this question.
One common approach is to divide the extant entities into groups called "categories". However, these lists of categories are also quite different from one another. It is in this latter sense that ontology is applied to such fields as theology, information science and artificial intelligence.
Further examples of ontological questions include:
What is existence?
Is existence a property?
What does it mean to say something does not exist?
Are sentences expressing the existence or non-existence of something properly called propositions?
What is a physical object? Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
What constitutes the identity of an object?
When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?
What features are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental, attributes of a given object?
What are an object's properties or relations and how are they related to the object itself?
What could it mean to say that non-physical objects (such as a time, souls) exist?
Why are we here? Why does anything exist, rather than nothingness? (Though, according to some, these questions may be more in the realm of cosmology.)
Metaphysics.
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world. Metaphysics addresses questions that have existed for as long as the human race - many still with no definitive answer. Examples are:
What is the meaning of life?
What is the nature of reality?
What is mankind's place in the universe?
Are colors objective or subjective?
Does the world exist outside the mind?
What is the nature of objects, events, places?
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge". The Scientific Revolution, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Metaphysics therefore became the philosophical enquiry into subjects beyond the physical world. Natural philosophy and science may still be considered topics of metaphysics, if the definition of "metaphysics" includes empirical explanations.
What is the meaning of life?
What is the nature of reality?
What is mankind's place in the universe?
Are colors objective or subjective?
Does the world exist outside the mind?
What is the nature of objects, events, places?
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge". The Scientific Revolution, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Metaphysics therefore became the philosophical enquiry into subjects beyond the physical world. Natural philosophy and science may still be considered topics of metaphysics, if the definition of "metaphysics" includes empirical explanations.
Ethics.
Ethics.
Ethics "moral philosophy", a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility. It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics), normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values), and applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).
Meta- ethics:
There are two main strands of thought, "non-realism" and "realism," that attempt to explain what ethical values and claims are actually about.
One strand is commonly termed 'non-realism', because it suggests moral values are creations, dependent on people's feelings and goals regarding themselves and others (emotivism or prescriptivism) or on their belief systems (cultural or individual relativism). Despite the name 'non-realist', such theories may see reality as important in shaping the human choice of ethical values. This could occur indirectly by, for example, the evolutionary or developmental shaping of human psychology, or directly through, for example, people assessing and debating the likely consequences of their actions.
Another group of meta-ethical theories, called 'realism', by contrast, hold that moral value is somehow an intrinsic property of the world and that ethical principles are simply discovered or intuited. Under this view, ethical values held by people can at best reflect an independent truth by which their validity must be judged. These theories may be derived from theology or naturalism.
Normative ethics:
Normative ethics bridges the gap between meta-ethics and applied ethics. It is the attempt to arrive at general moral standards that tell us how to judge right from wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives. This may involve articulating the character or good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behaviour on ourselves and others. There are three main approaches to normative ethics.
Normative ethicists who follow the first approach are often called virtue ethicists, and articulate the various virtues or good habits that should be acquired. Aristotle is a pioneer virtue ethicist.
Normative ethicists who follow the second approach are often called deontological ethicists. Immanuel Kant set out a large framework for a deontological normative ethical theory.
Normative ethicists who follow the third approach are often called consequentialists or (specifically in regard to the theory of the greatest good for the greatest number) utilitarians; John Stuart Mill set out a large framework for a utilitarian normative ethics.
Applied ethics:
Bernard Crick in 1982 offered a socially-centred view, that politics was the only applied ethics, that it was how cases were really resolved, and that "political virtues" were in fact necessary in all matters where human morality and interests were destined to clash.
The lines of distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"
Another concept which blurs ethics is moral luck. A drunk driver may safely reach home without injuring anyone, or he might accidentally kill a child who runs out into the street while he is driving home. The action of driving while drunk is usually seen as equally wrong in each case, but its dependence on chance affects the degree to which the driver is held responsible.
Ethics "moral philosophy", a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. It covers the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility. It is divided into three primary areas: meta-ethics (the study of the concept of ethics), normative ethics (the study of how to determine ethical values), and applied ethics (the study of the use of ethical values).
Meta- ethics:
There are two main strands of thought, "non-realism" and "realism," that attempt to explain what ethical values and claims are actually about.
One strand is commonly termed 'non-realism', because it suggests moral values are creations, dependent on people's feelings and goals regarding themselves and others (emotivism or prescriptivism) or on their belief systems (cultural or individual relativism). Despite the name 'non-realist', such theories may see reality as important in shaping the human choice of ethical values. This could occur indirectly by, for example, the evolutionary or developmental shaping of human psychology, or directly through, for example, people assessing and debating the likely consequences of their actions.
Another group of meta-ethical theories, called 'realism', by contrast, hold that moral value is somehow an intrinsic property of the world and that ethical principles are simply discovered or intuited. Under this view, ethical values held by people can at best reflect an independent truth by which their validity must be judged. These theories may be derived from theology or naturalism.
Normative ethics:
Normative ethics bridges the gap between meta-ethics and applied ethics. It is the attempt to arrive at general moral standards that tell us how to judge right from wrong, or good from bad, and how to live moral lives. This may involve articulating the character or good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behaviour on ourselves and others. There are three main approaches to normative ethics.
Normative ethicists who follow the first approach are often called virtue ethicists, and articulate the various virtues or good habits that should be acquired. Aristotle is a pioneer virtue ethicist.
Normative ethicists who follow the second approach are often called deontological ethicists. Immanuel Kant set out a large framework for a deontological normative ethical theory.
Normative ethicists who follow the third approach are often called consequentialists or (specifically in regard to the theory of the greatest good for the greatest number) utilitarians; John Stuart Mill set out a large framework for a utilitarian normative ethics.
Applied ethics:
Bernard Crick in 1982 offered a socially-centred view, that politics was the only applied ethics, that it was how cases were really resolved, and that "political virtues" were in fact necessary in all matters where human morality and interests were destined to clash.
The lines of distinction between meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"
Another concept which blurs ethics is moral luck. A drunk driver may safely reach home without injuring anyone, or he might accidentally kill a child who runs out into the street while he is driving home. The action of driving while drunk is usually seen as equally wrong in each case, but its dependence on chance affects the degree to which the driver is held responsible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
