[Guille]

lloyd,

The way to quote other's posts is by clicking where it ays 'quote' at the bottom-right part of their posts. One takes a time to notice. You can break a quote in pieces as I've done by copying [/quote] into each part at the end and the start at all starts.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie I agree with you Guille, philosophy and all of modern intellectualism is in a crises, and I would say it started in the late sixties and seventies. Will we solve our problems? Yes, a resounding yes, because we are being forced to by global circumstances in most all of the critical fields, especially economics and philosophy. Will we get past the last part of your above paragraph? Yes, of course we will, but we are going to have to realize we need TOE's in all the critical fields of life's important systems. We need interdisciplinary integration in the worst of ways. That was my reason for mentioning equilibrium. Most are unaware how important a change that's taken place in most disciplines with the Bayes-Nash Equilibriums, and their newest refinements. Many have compared Nash's achievements with that of DNA, and I think it more important, it's just most are unaware of its varried interdisciplinary applications for integrations and new understandings.

Well, n the 60s and 70s there were many french intellectuals making developments, and there was also pop art and underground art later in the 80s. For me, the books "The Illusion of the end" 1992 by Baudrillard and "What is Philosophy?" by Deleuze-Guatarri 1991 mark the end of the French hegemony. I agree with what yous ay about the chanigng moments in which we live. It is not the end, it is just the start for the end. The start for achieving the TOE.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Just as an example, few realize that Boolean and Bayesian machine logic, used not only by Google, but also most of the capitalist financial world is surpassing and usurping human logic on a global scale. Just look reasonably at the situation. An item costs ten cents in China and ten dollars in the U.S. There's something wrong here. The greatest dis-equilibrium in world history is taking place, with computer trades pushing the corporations, at the expense of humans' general welfare. The centropic issue we must awake to is the irrational predictions which exist in Bayes-Nash equilibriums, that create real dis-equilibriums, the world now truly faces. I think the entire world, except for a few contrarian economists, is asleep on this one. They must be awakened by inventing TOE's anywhere, in any field, to attract attention to the world's true problems. Nash won the Nobel prize for his work in the fifties in 1995 - better late than never.

Baudrillard is my favourite, I'll use him here:
We want to know everytime everything faster and faste.r We want to be perfect, and so, to have knowledge of all events at the minimum interval of time,a ctually, if we coudl, we would see them happening all. This is why tv is important here. TV shows us whatver it wants, the images it wansts, and people think that because they are real images taken from the world, they think that then images tell you how everything is. but this the what I call a posteriori induction. If we see a bomb happens in Israel, we think that all days they have bombs in Israel, whiles avctually I have many friends that go sometimes there and nothing happened, it's all a lie. But it's lieing without lieing. That's the problem: in globalized 'advanced' countries, the nearest connection that people have to reality is tv. This is sincerely horrible to think about. Also the role of tv is to achieve a disequalibrated equilibrium, a capitalist communism. This is where tv has a role also: everyone watches the same thing the same time, therefore we are converted into pigs. Just like Pink Floyd's album "The Wall". School system also wants to eliminate my creativty, and of all, and make us be working machines. The whole thng is that, making us the same so that we ahve a perfect capialism: one that is communist. So the few top govern totally over the grand mayority. I listen many poeple say that democracy is the dictationrship of the mayority. Well, yes, but that mayority is dictated by a small minority.

Now, nature goes to equilibrium. This seems plausible. In fact it's one of the few natural total laws that I believe to be true. Every person was different in the past, and is born different, but everyone is very similar today, everyone dies in the same way: independent of how we die, we all die, this is the same. But I don't see equlibrium something good, nor bad, it' is time. Time is adding things, making things happen. And as time goes by, equilibrium happens, that is, mor mbad thing sna dmore good things. Capitalism is getting very fast, so fast that each event is meaningless and ends up not happening. Communism is getting very slow, so slow that each event is never eachieved and nothing happens. They are for me not to ways to live, but to way sto die (as Heidegger described life).

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie p.s. Another of my favorite philosophers is J.M.Keynes [a true genius in probability logic, as were Boole, Bayes and Nash]

I've heard of him a lot. But his philosophy is too formal, too practical in that sense. It's not usefull for a 21st century society. Why centreing a view of the world upon the system of value and organised manufacturing-trade? There is more to philosophy than that. Now this ocmes back to the crisis it faces now. Philosophy has alwaysed been and is (I can't assure that it will be in the future, though) the most broad of all our mental tools. This is why it doesn't know where to go, how to be, or when, or who... Philosophy has been a child for 2,500 years, now it's become a teenager, and doesn't know it's place in society. Should it go near economics, with the prctical view of the things in capitalism (as Keynes and other economic theoretics propose)? Or should it go with sociology and history (as Lyotard and others propose)? or should it go with the neurosciences (as proposed by so many philosophers of mind like Dennet)? Or should it go somewhere else? Or should it get lost (as propoed by Carnap)? So many questions that it could occupy a a thesis for university. I'll think about it, but maybe when I'm there the problem of identity has dissapeared.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie BTW, Huygens was Liebniz's professor and Newton's mentor.

I didn't know. So we could say that neither newton nor leibniz discovered calculus, Huygens did it all! (if he wouldnt' ahve been there nothing would have been done). But of course that would be like blaming Hitler's mother for giving birth to one of history's greatest (and most pathetic, with Mussolini)tyrans. In fact Leibniz was born the same day that I was but 344 years before, thus I feel a connection to him. He is my favourite philosopher of the 18th century by far.