84 karma · joined September 8, 2023
So it's quite normal to fear death. My trick to not fear death too much is this: perhaps in theory I own what is mine, but in practice I just have some assets that were lent to me, and that will be lent to others after my death. I see myself as just some manager of what I have.
This actually came from the skeptics [0]. They were unwilling to believe a Catholic priest proposing a scientific theory too similar to his religious beliefs, about God creating the whole universe in an instant.
When the cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1964, the Big Bang was accepted by (mostly) everyone.
If you move to any Mediterranean country, you will feel wonderful at first because our culture is so different, but for some people it gets tiresome and unbearable after some years.
Here you will find some more commentary about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiVV5udK_NM
"Demystifying the Characteristics of High Bandwidth Memory for Real-Time Systems" https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/362010/HBM.p...
> For this CAS latency, HBM (Observation 6) offers a significant advantage over regular DRAMs. This is because HBM has tCCD = 1 or 2 compared to tCCD >= 4 for DRAM. Accordingly, HBM can reduce the CAS latency component to at least half of its DRAM value.
Thank you. This is completely and utterly true.
Professional philosophers do essentially the same thing we do, they derive a set of personal beliefs that they see as trustworthy. The difference is that they go out and try to sell their philosophies to the public as if they were universal, but they aren't, so they almost always fail. Their books and publications tend to be filed under the heading "OPINIONS".
The second topic you mention is about the role of epistemology, in theory the study of knowledge but in practice an amalgam of (once again) opinions from different philosophers. It's difficult to explain epistemology without referring to those opinions, and those may be wrong anyway. Several pieces of the puzzle are still missing.
Seriously, philosophy is a personal endeavor. You derive your own, make your own deductions, and you believe in them. That makes it valid for you.
But ... if your philosophy is about how the world works, about some aspects of reality, and you want to ensure that both your philosophy and reality agree, then you can choose to do science:
1. From your philosophy, derive some hypothesis.
2. Check you hypothesis with some experiment.
Who succeeded in doing that? There is Confucius, and Norman Borlaugh, and many others ...
In politics, understandably, everyone believes that their actions are right. Those beliefs inevitably lead to warfare. That's why I don't believe in politics.
I stick to philosophy now, knowing that the quiet contemplation of the world, without taking sides, will yield some lasting benefits, without reckless wars destroying the insights about ourselves that we have already collected and named 'progress'.