这么多问题，约翰/肯!你的例子乞求下面的瑜伽:当你走到岔路口时，接受它。对于上述大多数问题，我想提出以下观点:我们大多数人都有一种根深蒂固的蜘蛛感，或者你也可以说是直觉。这种感觉随着时间和经验的积累而发展。(我不太擅长启发式、解释学之类的词。)你的专家GG可能对这些事情知道很多。无论如何，“培训”来自个人经验。那些活得最长的人，没有遭遇“坏运气”(或糟糕的决定)，导致早逝，最终发展出一种相当好的蜘蛛感觉，或者正如你描述的那样:直觉。不合理的感觉和偏见是道路上的颠簸——这是学习曲线的一部分——如果明智占上风，我们最终可能会克服。(如果不是，那么早死的可能性就会越来越大。) Gut feelings are not science yet. But, even though there are "life sciences", neither is life.

谢谢大家的评论!绿色自由主义者——格拉德威尔的《眨眼》一书的大部分内容都是基于我们的嘉宾吉仁泽的研究。

~~ McCOY
(imploring)
Jim, try to be open about this.
KIRK
About what? That I've made the
wrong choices in my life? That I
turned left when I should've turned
right? I know what my weaknesses
are. I don't need Sybok to take me
在他们的旅行中。
McCOY
If you'd just unbend and allow
yourself -
KIRK
然后被这个骗子洗脑?
McCOY
I was wrong. This "con man" took
away my pain.
KIRK
Damnit, Bones, you're a doctor.
You know that pain and guilt can't
be taken away with a wave of a
magic wand. They're things we carry
with us - the things that make us
who we are. If we lost them, we
lose ourselves. I don't want my
pain taken away. I need my pain.
Study the chicken picker carefully. You will note her extending the chick's wing and examining its leading edge.

THE RELIGION OF CAUSATION
听到关于意识的某些方面的哲学讨论真是令人耳目一新。直觉?)而不涉及神经科学。这可能是由于正确的直觉，直觉?是与神经和大脑结构相关的;它们并不是由大脑活动引起的。另一句很有说服力的话是:“我突然想到一个主意。”这不是对大脑的描述。工作原理;这是对意识运作的描述。在大脑中设置意识只是一种(错误地)让我们确信因果关系的方式;器官中有一个机械的、科学的、化学的等过程在产生我们的意识。 This is indicative of the harm that science (and especially, neuroscience) has done to philosophy.
I call this strong, natural need for causation the religion of causation.
?Why do you think everything needs an explanation?? Prof. Jennan Ismael
这是一种信仰。万物皆有因;当一个原因没有明显的证据时，人们会试图填补一个。因为他们相信?在因果关系;他们相信原因就在某个地方，如果可能的话?不被发现，就会从伟大的解释者——科学中创造出来。进化提供了一种反馈机制??这是因果宗教的说法:达尔文的进化完全是由于随机性和突变发生的。但是，因为对于任何值得我们忠诚的东西来说，这似乎不是一个令人满意的方法，所以我们附加了“适者生存”的概念。 and ?adaptation? to the representation of the process, to give us comfort that really there is some direction, some reassurance of reliability. (Almost like believing in God, which few Darwinians would admit). When John says ?Evolution provides a feed-back mechanism?? all he is really doing is saying ?I ?believe? something scientific says that something caused ?? But there is no scientific causation, in the sense of direction or certain repeatability, to DE. The urge to supply it is a classic human urge, like religion.
我喜欢鸡的性别鉴定?讨论。我能说的就是我有鸡，当我买那些在我看来是母鸡的雏鸡时，总会听到这样的建议:如果你想要四只母鸡，那就买六只雏鸡，因为其中一只可能是公的(在我居住的城市里养是违法的)，另外一只可能会死掉。我们这些理性主义者很难相信这一点，我知道，但我可以抱着这些一天大的小鸡，看着它们，我可以感知它们。男性还是女性。我认为这可能是一种能力。或运动?正在打开?和接受?这些非科学的问题，你可以看出这是我的兴趣所在。 At least being open enough to take them seriously enough to investigate them.

消除主义的神经科学家确实歪曲了意识，但诚实的科学家指出，他们找不到意识，他们通常使用的方法，无论是刺激或损害，或研究受损的大脑，在某些区域以某种方式讲述了心智的故事。更重要的是，他们从这种刺激或损伤中得出的结论，比如让一个人的左手拇指抽搐，或注意到某一特定区域的受损组织导致某种精神能力或敏锐度的丧失，可以被研究对象以否定研究结果及其方法的方式排除。

Chickens make a wonderfully soothing clucking noise that roosters do not. Perhaps this is sensed even in the chicks. I learned of the chicken sorting trick on an epsiode of Mr's Rogers. The roosters, as I recall, have some rather more ragged feathers on the leading edge of their wings. In any case, mystery does not imply mysticism. I was riding my bycicle today and, looking down to see if the wet of the road was spraying onto me from the front wheel, I almost lost control of the bike. It seems that my reflex inverted with the upside-down perspective, and my steering went awry. It is easy to forget how much that we do is intuitive. (intuition--dare I say?-- "=" a commensuration between the empirical and the rational impossible but for the intervention of a mode of being capable of surviving the change between two incommensurate systems. I call it person, though consciousness will do in a pinch.)

The "honest" neuroscientists are beginning to admit to what neuros and philosos are calling "the gap," between as far as neuroscience can take you, and the constitution of consciousness. It would be very welcome (though not very popular in TED talks) if neuros stopped insisting that they, someday, will bridge the "gap." Honor the gap, neuros, you will be more respected for acknowledging limitations, rather than steam rolling over them.
你对哲学演算的持续、迷人的讨论让我想起了一种精神理性瘫痪的状态，我通过解构主义的思考和思考来追求不可企及的意义。加里，当你一直跑到球门的一半距离时，你可能会瘫痪。这时，诗歌的隐喻(以及喜剧的讽刺)就能提供慰藉。过一段时间你就可以继续切了。

Even space cannot be divided endlessly. That is why the infinitesimal is so problematic. But if the least term of space is the infinitesimal that cannot be decisively placed within any more than without the calculation, or its governing law, can time be divided even further still? If the least term of space is in contrariety to its geometric perfection or mathematical certitude what would the least term of time be? The conviction that everything material is enumerative, can be counted which one and how much it is, is incommensurable between these differing modes of being one, what divisions of that conviction but a kind of dialectic in the character of it? A sort of ebb and flow? Like, say, emotions? And if the last final and least yet most encompassing term of that conviction is its loss, then that dialectic is act. Act in a sense the concept of agency is but immanent to as a sort of epiphenomenon. Of course, like any contrariety, it is anomalous to its nominal or antecedent law unless it is in some sense enabled a response that completes its being the even more encompassing context of it. It is literally true that the least term of time is all the differing it is. The image of Achilles arrow or the tortoise and the hare is just an evasion, a putting off of the moment. The dilemma being that the most real act is loss and the most articulate term is what responsibility of the worth of that loss yet lives amongst us. Between loss, and responsibility of its worth being recognized (love), time is emancipated of its ordering and tempo. We cannot prepossess that moment, for there is no enduring it is.
Bertie Russell (not Wooster) somewhere says (I paraphrase) that a philosopher should start with commonplaces and derive outrageous truths. On a discussion board like this there is little scope for the extensive argumentation this requires. It necessitates outrages as the starting point, in hopes someone will show enough patience to hear some of the (more or less) commonplace reasons of it. The usual response, of course, is outrage, so I am gratified when I meet with a kinder one!

So provocative, your thoughts I differ with; so brilliant, your thoughts I agree with. Haha.
时间:看TSEliot的四首四重奏(每首四重奏的第一节是关于时间的)。我认为时间不是“点点点点”，而是“白噪音”。非常解放，尤其是当每个人都有资格描述“时间是什么”的时候。关于“无穷小”与“有限”:我再次提醒大家，不要在试图“找出”某些东西的时候，对这个问题产生过多的好奇而导致瘫痪。“潮起潮落”是对创造和变化的一种比“大爆炸”更理性的描述。这里的潮起潮落比“所有物质的爆炸(侵入)进入的无限虚无”要多得多。我接受一切辩证法;我接受黑格尔式的综合理论，作为过程的一部分:问:我们如何看待随机性和突变，试图找到令人安心的因果关系(其实并不存在);如何认识(发明)损失的价值责任。希腊人(最伟大的哲学家)有两种看待事物的方式: what they called "normal" which meant what everyone (except nutcases) knew was the case, and 2. the product of phlosophical investigation, a rational dialog about thoughts. I am a BRussell fan because of his wonderful History of Western Philosophy, which I consult all the time (in fact, it is the only phil hist I read); but I am not a fan of his methodology: define terms. "Defining" sophistically makes the rules, asks the question, and then answers it, without examination. Defining is not doing philosophy; phil does not seek "definitions" it seeks "meaning," or significance, or what comes from the realization that EVERYTHING is representation.

Schopenhauer? (The World as Will and Representation, the inspiration of Nietzsche's 'Will to Power')

My problem is that I have to reference a vast body of unpublished justification.

理查德·费曼(Richard Feynman)写了一本很好的小书《量子电动力学》(QED)，关于光的行为，这本书可能会给你一些思考的东西。时间既不是单一的，也不是划时代的。显而易见的事情背后隐藏着一连串的活动。光和物质不是单独的事件，而是一系列奇怪的不可能事件，它们本身隐藏着更深层的不可能，尽管费曼轻松幽默地指导我们的微积分是我在另一篇文章中提到的缺陷。关键是，时间并不简单，它是一种动态的姿态，为其他姿态提供了机会，而其他姿态则是一组令人困惑的“可能”。但这些都不是单独存在的。只有在某种意义上，不受因果或理性法则支配的事物比不受因果或理性法则支配的事物更完整的时候，才有真正的事物存在。在普通的时间观念中，无限小并不被排除，因为它太小，不能固定在那里，而是因为它太不单独。如果它确实是在法律之外或在法律之内，这就给其他时间提供了这样的机会，没有那么多在规范的节奏之内，在同样的意义和同样的程度上是在法律之外。因此，时间的性质是在法律中发生的变化，即使对全世界来说，它似乎是在强加它的节奏。 The only power the will has is to get out of the way as the rest of time finds its freedom from the grinding tempo of necessity in the sense its loss offers it. No god can save us. No act of will can expropriate or represent to itself what time means. We engage in a dialectic of inner reverie through which the very rigor of preserving our convictions end in the final term their loss is. This loss is the act of our needing each other free. But the world is sustained as the conviction of a regular and regulated tempo of time that deflects responsibility of that loss, and maintains that conviction, as an offer of facile understanding. We take for granted what our words mean and that we are understood. But insofar as that needing each other free is recognized, not in the lost conviction, which remains a personal reasoning, but in the demise of that facile presumption the world is offered us, there is meaning more real intimated here. In other worlds, the dialectic is the growing recognition of the joke the world is in its offering us the language of its steady constancy in the face of our growing recognition of its changing wildly. Who is the agent of that change? Every changing mood of the world presents itself as the paradigm of time and tempo, and many find profit in pretending to keep abreast of it or even to generate it, but the freedom we derive through each other in the dialectic of a changing mind and recognition of the freedom it wins for us can never become a public property, any more than a private hoard.