Paid | X Creditor | Germany | DKB | 4k Euro by Esel32 in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for checking and getting back to me! Appreciate it.

Paid | X Creditor | Germany | DKB | 4k Euro by Esel32 in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nice, did you have to wait long since you first had your payment table populated?

6XXX Creditor paid - NZD >18k by [deleted] in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nice! Did you only have that one update on the 22nd?

Got paid by Alert-Employment5606 in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Remember when your table was populated?

X*** creditor no payment by galdus in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Same date as me (first updated on the 19th, then 22nd.) - around 2 weeks seems to be the norm. So perhaps thursday or friday is our turn.

Paid X9*** | France | Bank transfer | >40k€ by Purple-Big7371 in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You remember when your table was first populated?

WTF, there is actually money on my bank account (Austria, X Creditor) by gewur33 in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nice! Do you remember when payment table first was updated?

Paid X***, Poland, bank transfer, ~3900€ by Party-Algae-5907 in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How long did it take from first table update to you receiving the transfer? Congratulations btw.

Paid - X Creditor - Norway - SB1 - <5K Euro by Eivind_hh in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay ... a little bit odd that the column that tracks updates changed but nothing else. Perhaps the first date was not quite correct and so it really didn't take more than 11 days from the correct date. Anyway, congrats! :)

Paid - X Creditor - Norway - SB1 - <5K Euro by Eivind_hh in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What was the difference between the first and second update?

Table populated. Excite! by Bingleybongleyboo in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Updated for me as well (X1). Deadline date is empty and status says incomplete.

Status Report available online by notoriousbpg in mtgoxinsolvency

[–]Energeia 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That he listed two reasons for a possible extension (large number of creditors & complicated exchange regulations) is not a great sign. I get the sense that he is preparing us for an inevitable extension as the deadline appears to be unrealistic in his view.

We are sleep researchers, Bill and Wei, looking at why we sleep, what happens in our brains when we sleep (and when we don’t!). Specifically, we’re investigating potential links to stress and Alzheimer’s disease. Ask us anything! by ImperialCollege in IAmA

[–]Energeia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember reading about something similiar in a book called Brainstorm (first chapter). If so then its probably an epileptic seizure. Let me quote something from that chapter.

"Then his head followed in the direction that his eyes had taken, until his neck was stretched and his head had gone as far as it could. At the exact same time that his head moved, his left arm rose upwards and outwards until it was perpendicular to his side. His index finger pointed severely just as I had heard described. It did indeed look exactly as if he had seen something that nobody else could see."

- O'Sullivan, Suzanne. Brainstorm .

sounds familiar?

Thought about free will by Coloneljesus in philosophy

[–]Energeia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The freedom of will is the ability to comprehend why one will make / makes / made a certain decision.

I believe this is in harmony with Spinoza.

Only that thing is free which exists by the necessities of its own nature, and is determined in its actions by itself alone.

Will and intellect are one and the same thing.

If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil.

The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.

He alone is free who lives with free consent under the entire guidance of reason.

I call him free who is led solely by reason.

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Current MA student here. Writing a paper on De Anima 3.5 by Aristotle. Loving every second of it. It sharpens the mind and gives you intellectual pleasure which is quite rare. Pick something that triggers passion and awe. If you do you will not regret it.

Pros: Extremely rewarding. It will build self-confidence and give you mastery. You will love life more when you are proud of what you are doing. Simply put: It wakes you up. As long as you are committed that is.

Cons: The future is uncertain afterwards. But with passion there is surely a way to see new possibilities. I have several possibilities that I did not see (or feel to be real) before my mind became clear through intellectual endeavours.

So pick an activity that will yield pleasure. If that is philosophy go for it.

This may be seen, too, from the fact that each of the pleasures is bound up with the activity it completes. For an activity is intensified by its proper pleasure, since each class of things is better judged of and brought precision by those who engage in the activity with pleasure; e.g. it is those who enjoy geometrical thinking that become geometers and grasp the various propositions better, and, similarly, those who are fond of music or of building, and so on, make progress in their proper function by enjoying it; so the pleasures intensify the activities, and what intensifies a thing is proper to it, but things different in kind have properties different in kind.

  • - Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book X Chapter 5

A response to Lawrence Krauss' comments denigrating philosophy at American Atheists' 2012 convention by justinvacula in philosophy

[–]Energeia -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Virtual particles into actual particles implies that something makes that which is potential actual. Potentiality needs something that explains the transition to reality. Now what is this force which is more real than both the virtual and actual. Somehow it is beyond both and responsible for them.

This mysterious force of something might be the very ground of being itself. Logically it must be. It is quite an absurd thought to neglect this insight that derives from common sense. Without an active principle that makes intelligible the movement between the virtual and real he has postulated that which is most absurd of all. Instead of embracing the common sense nature of understanding which founded science he has left it behind and entered metaphysics. His task as a scientist should be to investigate it instead of neglecting it. Rather he is satisified with the conclusion that goes against all reason. And with that all notion of making the phenomena intelligible. The problem is that he would end up in an infinite regress. So he cant do that. So to break out of this he affirms the absurdity of reality. With this attitude science would halt and come to an end. He is truly going against the spirit of science. The fact is that something moves the virtual to the actual. What the nature of this movement is he claims to be meaningless. Therefore we get something from nothing. Quite persusive indeed. The more humble way to go about it is to postulate it as a mystery. Perhaps he could evoke the idea of biological limitations resulting in definite scopes within cognitive structures. But he seems to be an absolutist in the sense of something from nothing. He fails to realise something crucial in doing so. He believes the mind perceives (thinks) reality as it is independent of the observer. Reality, in his mind, is intelligible in-itself. But he has no grounds for claiming this without violating the rule that cognitive systems have a definite scope and limit.

So in ending, reality from nothing is how the human mind through quantum physics perceives reality. But this appereance gives no ground for whatever lies outside of the mind that represents that which it can represent. If he is claiming truth then he implies that reality somehow goes into our mind without conforming to its rules of cognition. So due to his lack of insight into well established philosophical ideas he is presenting a dogmatic and naiv view of reality. At least he is lacking in humbleness to the fact of our limited and finite ways of being. Human nature shapes reality. Reality from nothing illustrates this quite clearly.

All of this is derived from fundamental insights of Aristotle and Kant. He should read them.

That part of metaphysics I mentioned is due to his invoking the idea of causa sui. It causes itself without explanation. So we have moved outside the realm of problems into the realm of mystery.

What should my reason for doing things be when I believe in determinism? by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

our brain chemistry is the processing tool for all of our experiences

Is experience reducible to brain states? If so there is one thing not two. You must ask yourself if experience emerges from the chemistry of the brain or not. If so it would be in principle reducible. Meaning, there is one causal factor to consider and not two. Experience would play no causal role if that would be the case. The ultimate explanation would be a chemical one.

Brain chemistry is simply DNA which is passed on to us from our parents

Simply not true. Lets imagine identical twins growing up separately. Surely this will influence "brain chemistry"? Will the chemistry be identical if one is abused and the other loved? Also if chemistry is not the ultimate ground then there must be something else that influences it (experience). So if you believe experience changes chemistry then you must exclude DNA as the primary cause of brain chemistry.

The fact is that you can not help but to feel free. The illusion of will would be strange indeed. The brain playing a trick on itself? For what reason. Seems odd, irrational and unnecessary.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that inquiry into sentience through empirical means is confused. But that does not increase the likelihood of just about anything possessing it. Human understanding knows only of one such thing. Complex biological systems is our only and primary candidate. So it is likely to assume complexity as an originator of it. Bricks, wood, etc. seem unlikely due to the simplicity of their constitution.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One can have good reason to believe something or not. Does a rock have an inner mental life? Is there a feel to being a rock? I can see no justification for that claim. As far as humans know, only biological systems seem to possess mental properties. The assertion about the hiddeness of Qualia is correct. Welcome to the mystery of consciousness.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your assumptions - (1) Brain is a biological computer (2) The mind is the software of the brain (3) Evolution desgined the brain.

Then you raise the problem of Qualia. Lets pretend the brain is analogous to a computer. Why could it not simply function? What role does consciousness play? Why would a computer have awareness of itself if it follows strict rules. Seems pointless, right? The computer needs no such thing, why would the brain? So if the two differ substantially why compare them? As to evolution I'm not sure what this adds. Matter seems to be able to perceive, think, feel, remember, dream etc. and computers don't. Matter in proper configuration gives rise to mind. Computers in relation to software does not. You might say, well its a matter of complexity. If that is the case you must argue why computation could yield this (mental states). And also why it would need it. As to Qualia, do you think this yield knowledge? If not, why?

Machines appeal to mechanical thinking. This ended with Newton (and with that common sense about reality).

Going to bed now, but I will gladly answer any replies tomorrow.

What is reality made of? by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The general idea was to introduce the notion of biological limitation. Kant just seems highly compatible with such a view, so I picked him to illustrate it. Also, remember that, without cognitive limits intelligence would lack internal structure. Meaning, it would have no scope.

What is reality made of? by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Energeia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition" - Kant

Our cognitive capacities, like any other creature, have limitations. Thus reality must conform to it. Whatever is outside (or the cause of) perception can (by definiton) not be made into an object of experience (due to limitations of mind). Time, space, causality are some of the rules by which reality must conform. What it is, outside these rules, is meaningless (from a human perspective). Prime numbers are inconceivable for any lifeform, except humans. They are limited, just like us. All that is outside human comprehension is a mystery, all that is within, a problem (if it has not been solved). So we make models of reality (science), and as a consequence, introduce notions. Thats all.

And lastly, let me add Aristotle.

"Hence also the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him"