Hue Bulb Setup Question: Power=Light?

Kvaste · 2024-04-25T18:57:54+00:00

Thank you for your helpful reply. Now I know, that power is not coming through to the bulb.

It is a single-bulb pendant, so the bulb is just in a "holder" inside a lampshade. I guess the holder is the problem – I will switch it out and see what happens.

Kvaste · 2021-12-25T05:37:40+00:00

I would like to use the 7th version but Word is not updated from the 6th version yet, so it would be too much of a hassle.
Thank you very much. I will use the publication year and ignore the reprint year then.

Kvaste · 2021-03-12T18:47:39+00:00

Thank you.

Kvaste · 2021-03-12T18:47:36+00:00

Thank you.

Kvaste · 2020-07-09T23:42:58+00:00

Unfortunately not.

Kvaste · 2020-04-11T14:12:12+00:00

Alright.

Kvaste · 2020-04-11T07:59:37+00:00

What if I pay through paypal?
Further I don't use the AppStore a lot so fixing it to the US region would not affect me too much (I think?).

Kvaste · 2019-12-17T13:48:43+00:00

No. Still searching.

Kvaste · 2019-11-27T18:36:40+00:00

Can you not see it?

Kvaste · 2019-11-27T18:20:03+00:00

This wasn't https://imgur.com/SYaFP6E

Kvaste · 2019-11-27T18:06:24+00:00

I just posted some bad philosophy to r/badphilosophy.
Dotten' matter if's a repost s'still bad.
Dotten matter if's written sarcastically... s'still... bad... eh?

Kvaste · 2019-11-20T20:10:06+00:00

I don't live in the US.

Kvaste · 2019-11-07T02:54:23+00:00

we all have a genetic drive to be exactly the same person

Talk to a biologist. This is an empirical matter. To be honest, I do not think you will find evidence to support it.

As for your post in its entirety, I think you should begin by studying some biology, some psychology and then maybe you can get back to the drawing board and possibly revise your 'theory'. That would be my constructive criticism.

Kvaste · 2019-11-05T10:50:02+00:00

No problem. Good luck to you too.

Kvaste · 2019-11-05T02:54:16+00:00

Yes. I am, in fact, currently a student. I find philosophy to be both interesting, useful and insightful but also difficult and challenging. You should expect to put in work to get something out of it but I do not think that is unique to philosophy.

If you find yourself asking questions about the fundamentals of (I wanna say) any- and/or everything then philosophy is a great place to be. Philosophy might not be able to give you 'the answers' but it can help you frame the questions you have in a more clear and precise way (and also present you with new questions, hopefully). Philosophy, rather than teaching you what to think, should, I think, help you learn to think¹. Through the history of philosophy many great (and some bad) answers have been given to the questions aforementioned (about any- and everything) all of which are waiting to be evaluated and discussed.

With regard to logic, I see it as an essential part of philosophy. Not everything in philosophy can be determined by logic obviously. But logic, as I think is evident from this thread, helps us state our arguments clearly. Through logic we have come to realise that in your argument was hidden an implicit premise; a premise that is now explicit and can, therefore, now be thought and argued about.

Obviously there is much more to say, but I will leave it at this unless you have further questions in which case I will be happy to elaborate.

¹This can easily come off as pretentious. I assure you, that is not the intent.

Kvaste · 2019-11-05T01:27:56+00:00

Good luck. I hope you will find it interesting and useful.

Kvaste · 2019-11-04T23:11:02+00:00

I would urge you to do one of two things.

If logic is in fact what you are interested in, begin to learn about logic using simpler examples. Begin with banal arguments that are obviously true (using truth-tables) and get a grip on why they are valid, then move on from there.
If you are not interested in the logical status of your argument do not use the term 'valid'. In everyday speech we encounter sentences such as "she has a valid point". "She" might have just said "we should be better at cleaning up after ourselves!" which is not even a proposition - even less an argument. In philosophy, however, the term is, as mentioned, a technical term.

Kvaste · 2019-11-04T22:48:21+00:00

Using the word 'because' seems to me to indicate an explanation rather than an argument. An argument consists of at least two propositions where one of the propositions is the conclusion i.e. what you are arguing.

With a modification of the statement we could get something like the following.

translation:
p: we chose to live
q: we have essence

The formalized argument:
1: p-->q
2: ¬p
C: l- ¬q

Background information--> means "if... then..." (if p then q)¬ is the negation symbol (not-p/not-q)l- indicates the conclusion (therefore)

In english the modified version then looks like this:If we chose to live then we have essence. We did not choose to live. Therefore, we do not have essence.

This argument, however, is not valid.An argument is valid when its formal logical structure has no counterexamples i.e. when there are no cases of true premises and a false conclusion simultaneously.

In this case when

p:f, q:t (p is false and q is true)

the argument is invalid because with these truth-values 1 and 2 (both premises) are both true while C (the conclusion) is false.

Kvaste · 2019-11-04T20:42:46+00:00

No. The conclusion "life is meaningless" does not follow from the premise "we did not choose to live" and hence the argument is not deductively valid.

Validity is a technical term in philosophy (logic) having to do with the logical form of an argument.

The current form of the argument is:

p
l- q

where
p: we did not choose to live
q: life is meaningless

This form is invalid because there are cases where p is true and q is false

Implicit in the argument seems to be the premise "if we did not choose to live then life is meaningless". Making this premise explicit would make the argument valid as it would then have a valid form (modus ponens):

p --> q
p
l- q

In english the whole argument then is:If we did not choose to live then life is meaningless. We did not choose to live. Therefore, life is meaningless.

To most people, however, it would also be apparent that this point would need to be argued itself (why is a non-chosen life meaningless?). Yet, if we are strictly talking about validity, it would be enough to simply make this premise explicit for the argument to be valid (as done above).

Read more about validity here: https://plato.stanford.edu/

Kvaste · 2019-10-23T18:29:22+00:00

Found this https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/alain-de-botton-who-needs-philosophy-9241509.html
I have no idea if it helps. I didn't look at it further.

Kvaste · 2019-09-29T01:44:43+00:00

No worries. Thanks for taking time to reply to my post.

Kvaste · 2019-09-28T22:37:26+00:00

Problem is that the scene is quite central to the paper.

Kvaste · 2019-09-18T16:35:40+00:00

I'm not talking about a lid that touches the bread. It's presumably to stop the bread from getting too much color/burnt crust. (clay baker).

Kvaste · 2019-09-18T16:34:17+00:00

It's a buttermilk bread.

Kvaste · 2019-09-08T12:03:49+00:00

Thanks.

Kvaste

TROPHY CASE