bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  31

  Something terrible has just happened

  by Crazyguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the neighbor child came over to play with my youngest child.

  i think she's about 4 maybe 5. well anyway there was some strawberries out on the counter and she asked if she could have one and i said no.

  when i looked over later i saw her sneak one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Man, you are like the most moral person i know
• 
  40

  What is the truth?

  by hardtobeme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that is what my professor of philosophy asked us last night at class.. he said that pontius pilate asked jesus that question and that it was a hard one that jesus couldn't answer.. what do you think about this question?

  what is the truth?

  does the gb has any truth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Importantly, truth is a property a proposition may or may not have. That is the main problem in the wtbs treating the truth like an object (it is the truth)
• 
  40

  What is the truth?

  by hardtobeme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that is what my professor of philosophy asked us last night at class.. he said that pontius pilate asked jesus that question and that it was a hard one that jesus couldn't answer.. what do you think about this question?

  what is the truth?

  does the gb has any truth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  The problem with the word "truth" is that it have multiple meanings in different contexts which are very commonly confused, even by philosophers.

  To get started, our common-sense intuition about where we should go look for truth is in logic. Logic is the study of consequence of assumptions. In other words, in logic* you assume you have certain axiom and you can then derive consequences of those axioms and other propositions. The consequences are then said to be "true". For instance if you have accepted that (A) socrates is a man and (B) all men are mortal it is then true that (C) socrates is mortal. This is the most fundamental characterization of true and the one we are all likely to resort to.

  The problem is this will not do in terms of answering Ponteus question. certainly, *we* can say that: "C is true", however *logic* (as discussed up to now) is not expressing this relation, therefore *logic* cannot express the sentence "C is true" (under the above definitions). This distinction is quite technical, however it is one many philosophers are prone to re-discover in various forms and point it out as a fundamental problem of defining truth. To analyze a sentence like "C is true" (that is to say, to have a formal system which expresses a proposition is true), you need something like Tarskis semantic theory of truth which is quite technical. This would however be my answer to Ponteus: Read Tarski!

  Now, a problem which now occur is none of this corresponds to our common-sense intuitions about truth in the real world. For instance suppose we flip a coin 1000 times and it comes up heads 1000 times. Would we conclude it is true the coin is biased? There is no principled way to derive this conclusion using logic** (we could just have been very unfortunate!), and so it is easy to resort to all sorts of odd speculations like there is no truths about the real world etc. etc. What occurs here is we should really ask for our *degree of belief* in the proposition "the coin is not biased"; this is a concept that can be analysed with some rigor (c.f. the Bayesian interpretation of probabilities) giving us a framework that allows us to give definite meaning to a statement such as: I have a very high belief the coin is biased because it just came up heads 1000 times out of 1000 flips.

  A second problem is most of the time when we consider the real world, we are not really interested in "truth" (in a technical sense) but good models. For instance newtons laws are not "true" in any strict sense (they give wrong predictions in some instances), however they do provide a very good and valuable model for reality. It is for this reason I am a bit skeptical with a statement such as: "truth is what corresponds to reality", since it seems this both ignores the most rigorous definitions of "truth", rules out very good models of reality which nevertheless are not strictly corresponding to reality all the time (newtons laws, the theory of relativity, etc.) and introduces the additional problem that we do not have access to "what corresponds to reality". For instance how do you determine if it "corresponds" to the reality the coin from before is biased?

  I think we are better off to say: "Since we are talking about the real world, we can only talk about what provides a good model for reality, and specifically the degree in which we can believe in them, and that is then what I am going to talk about. Feel free to call that "truth" or not if you like, I am off to compute the orbit of the moon".

  +++

  * This is not the only characterization of truth in logic.

  ** well ++technical stuff.
• 
  72

  Specific Comments By R&F About May Broadcast

  by freemindfade in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know there are many posts discussing the may money requesting televangalism...er... broadcast i mean!

  but i wanted to start one where anyone can put what they have heard any non-exjw, non-apostate witnesses say good or bad about the broadcast.

  i don't see how it can't rattle followers... but then again i might be surprised how they can twist things (2+2=5).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  If they are going to go the tele evangelist route, the next step must involve one of the gb members getting a wig!
• 
  55

  Mays JW TV Broadcast/Your feedback is appreciated

  by ToesUp in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have a pretty good intuition but i have to admit i am going back and forth on the jw tv may broadcast.

  i keep asking myself are they really in financial trouble (wishful thinking) or are they just grabbing for more money?.

  i always appreciate reading everyone's thoughts and ideas on here.. let me know what you think.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  They are investing in property which is properly a very good investment but expensive. I don't think for a second they have a serious problem, they are just using a temporary deficit to obtain more funds. It's like this:

  Bob: Lucy, can you loan me some money?

  Lucy: Uhm okay, something happened?

  Bob: Yah, I just can't make ends meet anymore. I spend more than I earn

  Lucy: Oh you poor thing. But you have a good job, what changed?

  Bob: I buy a lot of gold. I expect the price to go up so i am investing, but gold is expensive so now I need more money

  Lucy: So what are you going to spend my money on?

  Bob: More gold! I really need money Lucy!
• 
  172

  May tv.jw.org program

  by zophar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the may broadcast on tv.jw.org.

  we need money!.

  http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodstudio/pub-jwb_201505_1_video.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  At around 27 minutes in, we are told that selling "one of the significant buildings" (later: most significant) in NY only covers the operating costs for "a few weeks". As best as I can tell this put the annual operating costs at around a billion?
• 
  172

  May tv.jw.org program

  by zophar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the may broadcast on tv.jw.org.

  we need money!.

  http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodstudio/pub-jwb_201505_1_video.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Well, he sure got the 4 year old retard act down to a tee

  "sometimes we may feel a little bit shy to talk about the financial needs of the organization"

  L-O-L
• 
  172

  May tv.jw.org program

  by zophar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the may broadcast on tv.jw.org.

  we need money!.

  http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodstudio/pub-jwb_201505_1_video.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  lol, I think the most funny bit is to read the comments before watching the video: It seems like half the comments on this page are wild exaggerations, however they turn out to be simple quotes from the show!

  Has anyone noticed how he talks about the GB in 3rd person? "The governing body has asked me to use Psalm...". I found it a bit odd.
• 
  52

  Questions for those that believe in Electricity

  by OnTheWayOut in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.

  well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.

  and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  It is a well-known fact Einstein too rejected Maxwellism. Here is his own words from the opening paragraph of his paper on special relativity:

  It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena

  --A. Einstein. (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)

  There you go. Einstein too realized Maxwellisms inherently contradictory nature and flat out rejected it. Obviously all the Maxwellisms on this site believe they are smarter than Einstein, lol.
  
  
• 
  52

  Questions for those that believe in Electricity

  by OnTheWayOut in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.

  well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.

  and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  That the proponents of Maxwellism are so confused by the basic definitions in this so-called theory of electricity just goes to show it is obviously a theory in deep crisis.

  Here is a an easy way to disprove Maxwellism: Take a sheet of metal such as tinfoil and shine a flashlight onto it. Does any of the light flow through the metal? No! This simple experiment reveal a fatal flaw of Maxwellism: According to Maxwellism electricity should be able to flow through solid metal, yet light is also electricity. So how come the puny tinfoil sheet can suddenly stop the electricity?