Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30

Sculpture identification

File:IMG00252.jpg

My mother-in-law bought the sculpture pictured here at a department store (Liverpool) in Mexico City. She's wondering what culture this comes from. The best I can offer is that it looks like something African, but I can't do any better than that. Any thoughts? Donald Hosek (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A casting rather than a carving, yes? A pewter-like alloy? This is not an ethnological object, I'd think, but a modernist artist's sculpture.--Wetman (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rip-off of Giacometti to me. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

School of Giacometti would be my choice as well. Your mother-in-law certainly has - uh - peculiar taste; but you probably knew that already! --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What your mother-in-law bought, Donald, is a modern reproduction of an Etruscan votive statuette from the 4th or 3rd century BC. The original was found at the shrine of Diana near Nemi, on the Alban Hills south of Rome; it is now at the Louvre. – If you haven't yet waded into these waters, discovering the wonders of Etruscan bronzes, terracottas and mural paintings is a truly fascinating experience :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, Ev!--Wetman (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help :-) Since we are on this topic, you may want to compare the Louvre piece with what probably is the most famous of these slender statuettes, the one poetically called Ombra della sera ("shadow of the evening"), from the 3rd century BC, currently at the Guarnacci Etruscan Museum in Volterra, in central Tuscany. - Regards, Ev (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so many questions about WW2 Germany here?

They lost the war,after all...How come that people are more interested in a losing side,rather then in Russia,USA or UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.101.61 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

People in the West are fascinated with the Nazis. It's the common cultural barometer for evil, something pretty much everyone agrees was the ultimate horror, and as a result it becomes inherently fascinating, like the idea of sin itself. Plus, the fact that it was wiped out in 1945, unlike the other countries you've mentioned, gives it a little more historical specificity—it's a story that has a definite beginning and an ending. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered that too. My suggestion is that the history syllabus in the UK concentrates particularly heavily on this period. The other thing I wonder about is why so few people who pose a question post a 'thank you' when it's answered! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go partly with that, but also there is a fascination with Nazi Germany because Germany was very much a Country Like Us full of People Like Us, and yet that happened. Russia was a very different place, so events there seem less 'shocking'. The USA, not a lot really happened compared to elsewhere. The UK? There's quite a lot a stuff about the home front, and people do tend to be interested in the Blitz, the preparations for invasion, the Enigma code, evacuation, etc. But it tends to prompt fewer questions of "How could that happen?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.99.37 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "thank you" effectively curtails further answers which could add more information. --Sean 12:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true of course, Sean, but when I look at some of the lengthy and detailed answers given by the Wiki-lovelies who regularly post on this page, a bit of common courtesy wouldn't go amiss either! --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying your position. :) --Sean 17:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that "thank you" curtails further responses as though it's a matter of fact. I disagree. Why should gratitude for an earlier post hinder a future one? If someone has something to add they should add it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

← A more interesting question is, "Why don't more people research/ask questions about World War 1?" WW1 is more of a dark stain on Western behavior, while WW2 lets us "feel good" about stopping an obviously destructive regime. -- Kesh (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My .02004 CAD -- I think most Nazi Germany questions stem from a single question that might be the greatest puzzle of all time: How could it happen? How could a democratic, civilized country, the land that gave us Goethe and Beethoven and Kepler, descend into a barbarity unsurpassed in human history? What are the lessons to be learned? What does it say, if anything, about humanity in general? How much responsibility for the fate of Hitler's victims lies with collaborators or with perfidious Western governments? Were the evil deeds of Nazi Germany really unique, or were they foreshadowed by other atrocities now mostly forgotten? There are so many questions and so few satisfactory answers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, thank you, Sean! Thinking about this a bit more, and a propos various threads on my Talk page, I suggest that it might be because when we visit a European country about which we don't know very much, we rather instinctively turn to what we do know about, which tends to be what that country or people did in the War; we confuse history with geography. The most extreme example of this occurred on my first visit to Poland; I was sitting in the BA cattle class, and got talking to my neighbour who was a Pole. Was it my first visit to Poland - Yes - Oh; well you'll find that the way that Polish people begin a conversation - like the English mutter, 'funny weather we're having' - is to ask, 'Who do you hate more, the Russians or the Germans?' Sure enough, after I cleared the airport, my driver spent the next hour telling me in great detail just how badly the Germans had behaved during the war. I also notice quite a lot of commentary on the Austrians, for example, draws attention to the fact that they were never de-Nazified at the end of the war. And who doesn't, in thinking about Japan, turn to the fact that they behaved quite disgracefully during the war and never had the decency to apologise for it subsequently?

A lot of our attitudes are well-concealed; I know people who wouldn't buy German or Japanese cars, for example, although both of them have subsequently died; and certainly in continental Europe you tend to find quite a lot of latent dislike of the Germans, amongst the older generation, based on the wartime occupation (at least in my experience). --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've always assumed that our fascination (using "our" in the sense of White, middle-class people living in the First World) with WW II is that it was the major event in our family's lives -- well, at least for those who were directly involved, & their children (my father was in the 10th Mountain Division). We grew up hearing stories about it -- where they were when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, when FDR died, anecdotes about the service, about life at home, etc. My father was in Italy, for example, & his most vivid memory about Venice was not the architecture, but the size of the rats. (He didn't talk about his experience in combat until a few years ago, after "Saving Private Ryan" came out, although somehow I knew his division was planned to be part of Operation Olympic.) My mother would reminisce about rationing (lipstick was available only in the color black) & weaving through the barbed wire when she went to the beach. (As if the Japanese were about stage a seaborne landing on the Oregon coast. ;) Of course, this made us curious about what WW II was like for "the other side", as well as our allies.

On the other hand, WW I is ancient history for my generation, something we learned about in school -- & probably the same for those younger than me. Although one of my grandfathers was involved in that conflict, he died 9 years before I was born. The only person I remember meeting who was a WW I veteran was one of my stepmother's relatives, & I never thought to ask him about it. (FWIW, he served in the German army & I wished I could have heard some of his stories.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding some sordid details, like Dresden and a few more, all the Allies can feel well about having defeated the so ultimately evil Germans, and even all the Italians were in the resistance and thus can join the rejoicing. By focusing exemplarily on this war, by association all the other wars we have led became sort of good by association, too. And as the Germans were so powerful, it makes us look stronger. No pesky questions please about wars against Spain, Boer Wars etc. Show us another production by Guido Knopp, quickly! Whatever the Germans did, it was worse. Little discussed is the actual outcome of WWII: Poland, the reason for the War became Russian, Europe hat less democracies after the war than before, and the ethnically cleansed, quite brutally so, eastern parts of Germany proper were shown on American movie-news screens as "returned to Poland". Before dealing with that, I rather watch another program how Yankee POWs outwit their dull German guards again and again! Oalexander-En (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

History of England

Please summarise the history of England in one approx. 500 word-long paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.8.173 (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

England is a country which you'll find out more about if you click on the link. Write what and where it is. On that page you'll find a link to the History of England which is the topic of this essay. We will begin with a look prehistoric time. Stonehenge which you will learn about on the linked page was erected then. You should select 2 or 3 facts for your readers.

A nice introductory sentence will bring us to the Roman Empire. The Romans ruled England for as many years as you will learn back on the History of England page. In the years mentioned a few paragraphs down the Roman Emperor mentioned there invaded Britannia, which is England and Wales.

In the next paragraph you'll find what happened then, which you should tell in 1 or 2 sentences about settlers. Although the Anglo Saxons faced an event you'll mention in 495 They expanded again starting with a century mentioned in that piece and continuing for the number of centuries a bit of adding will give you. ...(178 words) Continue paragraph by paragraph By the time you have reached the end of that page your essay will be done and will probably have at least 500 words. Trim a couple of less important details if that's too much.--Lisa4edit (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit more to Britannia than England and Wales, but with only five hundred words to play with I think I should leave out the Britanno-Roman and earlier periods. England really begins with the arrival in Britain of the English, even if that was less of an event than we (I mean the English) like to think. Xn4 10:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not possiblehotclaws 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stone Henge, Romans, Henry VIII, The Beatles. A few people died in between. Thats all you need to knowIiidonkeyiii (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the "plot summary" section of 1066 and all that. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mean of you not to give this person an actual answer to his homework, so here is my suggestion:

The History of England begins with the arrival of the Engles, a peaceful tribe from what is now northern Germany. They arrived in England to find it almost unoccupied, the warring tribes that had previously occupied the island having killed each other off in a series of wars. In 1066 William the Conqueror, the last Roman emperor, conquered the island. When the Roman Empire fell he continued to rule in England, until succeeded by his sons Arthur and Alfred the Great. England later became a great sea power by having faster ships than anyone else, meaning that they got to all the good colonies first, and thus ruled India, Africa, America and Australia. In the 1500s the other countries started to rebel against the Pope (this was called the Reformation) but didn't know what to do when they had got rid of him. England had the great idea of getting the king to replace the Pope, meaning you only had to pay one person to rule. Then the other countries got jealous of England's success and sent an Armada to destroy all their fast ships, but Francis Drake beat them back by loading bowling balls into his ship's cannon. In the 1600s England showed the Indians how to make a drink from their tea bushes (the Indians hadn't known what to do with them before). Because of this the Indians let the English rule over them. But in the 1700s the Americans decided they didn't like tea, so they became independent so they could drink coffee instead. Those Americans who liked tea moved to Canada. In the 1800s people were inventing machines for everything, but the English didn't like this so they had the Industrial Revolution and got rid of them all. This made England the nicest place to live and everyone started to visit there. England then invented the parliament, which meant that people talked about their problems instead of fighting about them. Everyone copied this idea and that made a great contribution to world peace. In the early twentieth century Germany attacked England in order to make them buy more machines (the Germans were very good at making machines) but they weren't successful. They tried again a few years later but all the other countries joined in to stop them.

I'm note sure that's exactly 500 words, but feel free to hand it in anyway. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be OK. Just cut it down to the bare essentials to make it 500 words.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better than anything I could have added. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha! The history of England in 500 words? This surely must be a joke?! Ah, well, what about Angles came and then the Normans; Planted Gents and Wars of Roses, followed then by quiet Reposes. Then the Stuarts and Cromwell after, rise and fall and quiet disaster. A Revolution then, free and Glorious, and then the Germans, quiet notorious. Another Revolution, dark and satanic, but Parliament emerged, so no need for panic. Wars for freedom end the process. So it was that English history (England itself) came to a . Oh, to hell with this. Here is an altogether better summary:

This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,

Fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth,

Renowned for their deeds as far from home,

For Christian service and true chivalry,

As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,

Of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s Son,

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,

Dear for her reputation through the world,

Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,

Like to a tenement or pelting farm:

England, bound in with the triumphant sea

Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:

That England, that was wont to conquer others,

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,

How happy then were my ensuing death! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

500 words? Why do you need so many? This from Max Hastings' Nemesis (hardback ed., p.385):

In Rangoon Jail, a Gurkha subadar invited by the Japanese to compose an essay on the British simply wrote in block capitals: 'THE BRITISH ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE FINEST RACE IN THE WORLD.' He was sent to solitary confinement. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The part in Germany that the above-mentioned settlers arrived from is called "Angeln". (I'll have to see if I can find a better map) I remember being told that the previous occupants had vacated the island for Spain (Hispaniola was the name used if my old storage unit isn't faulty). (:-)Obviously starting a trend because the British like going there to this day.) Could someone maybe verify that? BTW Since it emitted the unmistakable odor of a homework assignment I thought it might be more helpful to point OP in the right direction and give some clues than to actually deliver a copyable product, or toss the question out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you suggesting, Lisa4edit, that the Angles took possession of England as a 'vacant lot'? Well, if you are, it's not true, not to any degree! Most of the 'previous occupants', as you put it, those who were not killed or assimilated, were pushed to the west and the north. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this passage above "The History of England begins with the arrival of the Engles, a peaceful tribe from what is now northern Germany. They arrived in England to find it almost unoccupied, the warring tribes that had previously occupied the island having killed each other off in a series of wars." I suppose I should have checked my facts. The phrasing might have been meant sarcastically. All I know is that some of the Germans that went and settled/invaded/ransacked or whatever England came from Angeln and that someone told me that at some point in "very far back" history a sizable population that used to live on that island packed up and went to live in Spain/Hispanola. I'm pretty sure it was after the migration period, but may be off even there. I was trying to get more details on that if indeed it is not a myth. No intention to step on any toes whatsoever. (Difficult with my foot in my mouth anyway. :-) Lisa4edit71.236.23.111 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitler and astrology

Is there any evidence that Hitler's astrological beliefs influenced decisions he took and perhaps contributed to his down fall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See Nazi occultism. Apparently the one who was most interested in astrology was Himmler. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I touched on this not so long ago. Here is what I said, slightly modified;

Hitler did not have an astrologer. He was altogether contemptuous of the practice, and astrologers were among one of the many groups persecuted during the Third Reich. There were, however, some among the leadership prepared to take the practice seriously, either for political ends or out of simple superstition. Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess were most notable amongst the latter. The man who came closest to being the 'court' astrologer was Karl Ernst Krafft, who was arrested in May 1941 following Hess's flight to Scotland, when Hitler, in his fury, ordered a fresh purge of occultists and astrologers of all kinds. Goebbels joked at this time that it was odd that not one amongst the group was able to predict what was about to happen to them! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations

How well does the first stand up against the second? Jet Eldridge (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The first is genius; the second is, well, philosophy! Sorry; I'm being glib, J T, though my remark contains an essential truth. Compared with the Tractatus, Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein's only other published book, is altogether quite disappointing. Gone is the daring and lucidity of his little intellectual squib. In its place comes a plodding analysis of particular sensations and the meaning of words: there is no such thing as philosophy; only philosophising. It's as if Socrates had decided to join the Sophists! The blend of logic and mysticism that made up the Tractatus has been replaced by somewhat pedantic process of unraveling words from knots of misapplied meaning. The long western tradition of thought and revelation through thought has ended in a form of linguistic hair-splitting. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I've always been impressed with the argument from the PI that the problem of other minds is solved by the existence of pain: although pain is the most subjective experience one can feel, all of us understand what the word "pain" means. That has interesting implications. -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Physicalism in philosphy of mind

Hi guys. I study philosophy, and I'm particularly interested in philosophy of mind. I'm wondering if there are any good, rational reasons to think that physicalism is false. From everything I've read and know, it seems incredibly likely that the mind=the brain, and most of the arguments that propose something different rest on either a current lack of knowledge about the brain or an unneccessary seperation into both mind and brain. So, are there any good reasons to think that physicalism is false? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most things can be explained or rebutted if you group all arguments you can't deal with as "a current lack of knowledge". We can, and do, push these boundaries. But it is also possible that reality is ultimately not "knowable". The mind=the brain works just on the same level that e.g. Newtonian physics work for falling apples. Until you dig deeper and find that you have this quantity "time" in there. Next you have direction. Then there is the problem of what this "apple" thing actually is. Every element of the concept of an apple falling reaches an unexplained/unexplainable element once you dissect it far enough. That's where physics, metaphysics and philosophy meet. The concepts turn cyclical because our idea of what "the brain" is, is created in "our mind". If you explain that everything that exists is just a thought in some higher being's mind, or the collective minds of all possible universes then physicalism arguments fall apart just as fast as vice versa. You might enjoy reading some ideas by physicist John Archibald Wheeler. I think at some point it all comes down to at what point you go with what you believe to be true facts and forget about the rest. (And eat the apple.:-) Lisa4edit --71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the inventors of Physicalism are creating a problem where none exists. Does anyone lose sleep over its tenets? Do you? Vranak (talk)

Well, actually people (like Rene Descartes) have lost a lot of sleep over the closely related mind-body dichotomy problem. Our article on dualism (philosophy of mind) summarizes some of the arguments for and against.--Eriastrum (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael, before I begin I would like to ask you a question. Are you really a philosophy student or just a student of philosophy?! I feel sure that you will understand the difference. If you are indeed a philosophy student, as opposed to a dilettante (like me!), then you must surely be aware of the critiques of Physicalism? Are you, perhaps, just setting an intellectual trap? Well, if so, I am about to fall into it, head first!

The essential problem is, even if one accepts the empirical argument for Physicalism, there are still too many philosophical barriers to accepting the complete theory. For example, how can mind and brain be taken to mean the same thing, when the meaning of the words is completely different? If mind was brain they would mean the same thing; but as we have known what mind is for centuries without knowing it is mind, it follows that this is impossible. In other words, by saying that mental state is identical with brain does not mean that 'brain' and 'mental' are the same thing. Put this another way: lightening is identical with electrical discharge but this does not mean that 'lightening' and 'electrical discharge' mean the same thing. In simple semantic terms we have to distinguish here between the extension and intension of a noun. Lightning and electrical discharge do not have the same intension; they do have the same extension. So it is with mind and body.

However, there are objections even more fundamental than this. The starting point here is that existence of irreducible mental properties, things which simply cannot be explained in physical terms. What it is like to have a mind is not part of physics, but it is an essential part of the mental. How, then, does Physicalism account for consciousness? For if mind is no more than matter, how can mental processes exist, as matter can only have physical properties?

Perhaps I can anticipate your objection here? You might, after all, take the same approach as Paul Churchland, and deny that there are any mental properties, or qualia, as this is occasionally termed? But this is simply an arbitrary foreclosure, an act of faith, if you prefer, not a matter of argument or proof. How can one possibly be convinced by those who argue that there is no such thing as an inner mental life, when so much of what we are, of what we believe, and how we act, comes from this?

The only alternative is to admit that there are indeed irreducible mental properties while still holding to the claim that the mind is brain. Mental features are then merely the way the brain appears to us as a kind of by-product. But here the Physicalists move on to even weaker ground. We know, or we feel, that we act in accordance with conscious thoughts. It is the decisions each and every one of us takes that result in actions. But Physicalism only serves to undermine this. After all, if brain processes cause action, then making a decision has nothing to do with it. John Searle put it like this: it is as though the froth on the sea was to think, 'gee, pulling these waves back and forth is really hard work', where froth is to consciousness what sea is to brain. In this model of things consciousness is no more than an epiphenomenon, which sits, so to speak, above the brain, without causing any of what is going on.

Here the main objection has to be that such epiphenomenalism serves to undermine all our concepts of freedom. Yes, there are some who do indeed maintain that we are not free. Fair enough; but if consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon then why does it exist at all? Why should this complex process have evolved in the way it has if it has no part to play in our lives? Is there any determinist so narrow as to allow no place at all for consciousness?

Yes, the link between mind and brain is not just close; it's intimate. Yes, there can indeed be no thought without brain activity. But, no, mind is not identical with brain. Now, Michael, tell me: how deep have I fallen?! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Michael, perhaps you're approaching this the wrong way. If whatever you have read - Descartes on the pineal gland, or Locke dividing the everything into God, Knowledge, and Matter - doesn't somehow strike you as persuasive on a deeper level, you are not alone. I recall reading a recent study (by the Chronicle of Higher Education, IIRC) that showed that a large proportion of grad students in philosophy find most of the classical modern philosophers similarly unpersuasive. My suggestion is that you read those authors who have tried to account for our sensations of feeling as if we have free will or an independent mind, but do not ignore all that we have learnt of the brain and mind since Descartes was writing (and the language developed two separate words!). For many of these philosophers, the challenge is reconciling what we know about brain activity with what we feel about the mind; most manage to come up with fairly substantive theories, many based on neurology, and others on evolutionary psychology, as to why we sometimes instinctively insist upon the independence of the mind. I'd suggest Harry Frankfurt, Daniel Dennett and Robert Kane. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers guys. To answer your question, Clio, I am indeed a philosophy student, and although I'm vaguely aware of the critiques/arguments, I don't study philosophy of mind. I was reading an interview with the aforementioned Churchlands about their eliminativist position and I felt although they were a little extreme, they raised interesting questions about our folk psychology understanding of the mind-brain problem, and how our lack of knowledge of the brain means we are curently unable to explain mental processes, but that this does not mean we will not be able to in the future. I don't know a huge amount about the subject, and all the reading I've done seems to be about highly technical and semantic disticntions between brain activity and thought. So I was just wondering if there are any empirically grounded arguments against physicalism. Again, thank you all for your answers. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its fair to say there are no empirically grounded arguments against physicalism, if we share the generally accepted definition of "empirical". Duncan MacDougall (doctor) died too soon. For a detailed discussion of such problems, Peter Carruthers (philosopher) has an interesting few chapters in some of his books, particularly The Nature of the Mind. Here is a sample chapter that might help you gauge whether its worth requesting on interlibrary loan, though it isn't the chapter which discusses empirical arguments for dualism, which is considerably clearer than this one. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I don't know if anyone is still reading this, but yes, there are good rational arguments against physicalism, as you asked in the question, though I don't know about "empirically grounded" ones, as you put it in your more recent post. I'd like to avoid all the semantic quibbles (extension/ intension and so forth), but I don't want to imply that there is no meaning to them. I just want to get to what I feel is the heart of the problem, and the real reason why people take up a contrary position. Clio mentioned it: consciousness. How do you explain self-awareness without reference to either the human soul, or at least without something beyond the laws of physics? We are not conscious when we are asleep, so it can't be caused by the mere presence of grey matter. Essentially, I feel everyone will agree it is a cognitive process, and depends on the way the brain uses information, not what it is actually made of. Most would then accept that the same cognitive processes could be represented in a different substrate, like a computer, whereupon physicalists would be obliged to accept that the computer would become self-aware. This would then apply further, to a gigantic mechanical contraption that contains the same information in the form of, say, a set of rocks being pushed around with huge levers. The levers could work according to the same rules for processing as the brain uses, complete with adaptability to new information. This means that the information processing functions of the brain could be represented exactly in the macroscopic world, obedient to the same laws, and carrying the same information. Some aspects, like adaptability, would have to be simulated, but this is possible in principle, and then the machine would behave the same way as a person, at least if physicalism were true. This presumably commits the physicalist to accepting that it would also be self-aware, as if it were exactly the same person whose brain it was modelled on. Most people would accept that the reductio ad absurdum argument has come to an end, and at least question physicalism at this point. But it gets even worse. Within just a cupful of water, there are any number of molecules bouncing wildly about, in an awesome variety of permutations. If we could selectively mark a subset of them at will, we might even find one that moves, for a brief period, with the same pattern as the set of electrical signals in our own minds. This means that, if selectively marked, it would be carrying the same information. The unmarked molecules would play the same role as the mechanical levers in the previous analogy, pushing the marked molecules around; the marked ones of course are equivalent to the rocks. And just like the mechanical example, this would also produce consciousness. The only objection appears to be that we can't actually select such a set, but in fact we don't have to. If physicalism is true, then consciousness is simply part of the physical world, so if there is a set of molecules that could produce consciousness if marked, then that property is actually a physical one, and is good enough on its own to serve as a marker. The set of molecules is identified as "that set which, at that time, is transmitting the same information as my brain." Therefore, it is also me, or at least has my self awareness. Nobody would believe this, but I don't see how the physicalist can escape it. I invite any comments, however belligerent, because I probably deserved them. Thanks, DN. 203.221.127.95 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How to obtain an equipment trust certificate

What is the process from begining to end on how to finance an airplane using an equipment trust certicate? What documents does it involve and where do i get these documents?

Thank you,

Namllips00 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical and Critical Significance of Post-Structuralism today?

What is so important about post-structuralism in today's contemporary culture? Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.169.32 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read our article post-structuralism and followed some of its links? Your question is very broad and vague. Perhaps if you asked some more specific, focused questions, we would be able to give you some answers.--Eriastrum (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

121, I completely agree with Eriastrum, though I would go one step further: your questions is not just vague, it's impossibly vague. I would be pleased to help if you would only try to make things altogether more specific. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course its impossibly vague, its about poststructuralism. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, play nice. -- Kesh (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Landreneau, France Is it ancient history, or exists today?

I have a resident living in the same disabled home as I am, that when speaking to her about our Acadian 'Grand Derangement', when we were exiled from France, went to Nova Scotia, only to be kicked out again, before we settled in lower Louisiana, she told me something surprising. Her family, is not of Acadian ancestry, but her family, did come from France many years ago. The town, Landreneau, was where they lived, and for some unknown reason, the WHOLE COMMUNITY, was also exiled out of France. She says that all the different families, dropped their normal last names, and used Landreneau,instead.

This was done as a connection, and form of protest, for their being evicted from France. And she well remembers her father's anger, when he others around him, tried getting him to add an X at the end of Landreneau. He believed, it would break the connection to his home land and town, if it was done that way, so he refused. An area monthly magazine, some years back, ran an article on this town in France, and she had saved the issue, but simply can't find it any more.I contacted them, and hope to hear back, and to get some info on this situation. But using the pc, I simply CAN NOT GET ANY INFO, OR ON MAPS, FIND Landreneau, France.Did it indeed, ever exist? And if so, what name was given to it, to replace the Landreneau name? It's sort of strange, that I have had absolutely no luck, getting any hits, on this place, and really believe, that it's name was replaced by something else, so many years ago.

Does anyone, have any clue, to this matter, and can direct me to find out what the history of this place, really is? Thank you. Ffman21 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)ffman21

http://maps.google.fr/ didn't have Landreneau but there's a Landerneau in the Bretagne. Given that there have been spelling changes, that might be it. --Lisa4edit (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We have an article, Landerneau, not much help, though. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the expulsion, Ffman, does the lady in question perhaps have a Protestant ancestry? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be one possible reason but if it is indeed that town google shows, then Breton language gives clues to another. French authorities tried to stamp out "non-French" cultures in France. Maybe even both reasons applied. Lisa4edit (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If, indeed, they were Calvinists / Huguenots, then there is an article on it for information on the background. However, Luisiana was originally a part of New France where Protestatnts were prevented from settling. This would make Huguenot roots of this name unlikely.

As for the Breton hypothesis, I have never heard anything about a forced emigration of Bretons. Also, the Breton name is Landerne, which casts some doubt on this theory, as well. The French article on the place is somewhat longer, but does not seem to refer to some exodus (my barely remembered French may have missed a clue).

Sorry if this is not of any help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. You've given me a start on this. I gave her what was added over night, and she's amazed, and a bit embarrassed, that she know's so little of her ancestry, back in France. I found Googling JUST Landreneau, and leaving the France part off, gave me much more. Found a travel site, France This Way, that sends out monthly lit. on what France has to offer visitors, and I sent them a message, asking for any info on Landreneau, and the why of it. Also, asked if they could point me in the direction of getting the entire story on Landreneau. I hope to hear back from them. As to our heritage here in Louisiana, yes, we bought it from Napolean, calling it the Louisiana Purchase, and if you ever see a map of the ORIGINAL Louisiana superimposed, it covered more area, than Alaska does. But they broke it into many different states, thus shrinking us in size. I really have no memory, learning on the purchase, of any religious troubles, but it would hardly surprise me, if they did. Searching for Landreneau, and getting contacts, like from you all, is making me feel interested, in learning about her past. She seemed really thrilled when I filled her in this morning, and she hopes, as I do, that this is just the beginning. Thank you, folks. And add things, as you think of it. It's appreciated.Ffman21 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffman21 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some poking around, and I wish I had an approximate date for the expulsion you mention. I found an article that goes into detail about a little revolt in Finistère in 1902 during the implementation of the 1901 French Law on Associations (which disappointingly redirects to Voluntary association). The author mentions royalist tendencies even that late in Landerneau, which might well have caused people problems there somewhat earlier, non? The 1902 foment had to do with an attempt by Republican France to unify and homogenize the country, with secular schooling and the abolition of the Breton language. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit default swap

Has there ever been a CDS (or similar instrument) that included a clause protecting the buyer against downgrades in the reference entity's credit rating? I know that you could possibly proxy this with a future or an option but I'm looking for an instrument that specifically allows for migrations. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)