Philip Klöcking

general recent conversations

Discussion on question by Cartesian D…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Jul 15 10:27

If a particular argument is of interest, the exact reference and a quote or synopsis to have a common base would be appreciated.

Philip Klöcking

Jul 15 10:27

@MichaelHall The access is clearly ontic, not ontological. The latter needs the additional and highly problematic assumption that we perceive things as they are. The epistemological distinction between ontic and ontological is important when we speak about any skeptical argument. And at the heart of the distinction between solipsism and nonipsism. The question remains: if there are only qualia, how can they form meaningful perceptions. And given they are meaningful, how can they have any (ontic, not ontological) being if not as being perceived. If perceived, does it make sense without subject?

Discussion on answer by Philip Klöcki…

Imported from a comment discussion on fitness.stackexchange.co...

Philip Klöcking

Jun 24 20:55

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada That's what I wrote, though. No prospective or epidemiological study will be able to tell us anything about the individual case. And the dose makes the poison. Still, I fail to see any condition where (appropriately dosed) strength training is not beneficial.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 24 20:52

You are totally right that anything one can stick to is better than nothing, of course.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 24 20:52

@gunnar247 Guess what, fussing around with your daughter, who is growing, is progressive strength training. Yet, the load and the number of muscle groups involved are too small, so you'll still miss out on some benefits, especially bone health.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 18 14:04

@JohnP That is the question though: is it? It may well improve neuromuscular function due to recruitment ability improvement but is it really muscular strengthening? I consider this so be an ill-defined term tbh but any reference I found mentioned volitional fatigue

Philip Klöcking

Jun 18 13:37

@SergeyZolotarev Well it basically captures the fact that it is mostly your neural system, not your muscle as such, that limits your number of reps. A fancy way of saying "you cannot go any further if you wanted"

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 20:40

@JohnP I guess the core of the dissent is what constitutes "muscle-strengthening activity". And most people underestimate what a minimal dose for that actually is

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 20:27

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada Added more evidence - again - including Stamatakis et al (2018) that specifically states: "Our results support promoting adherence to the strength exercise guidelines over and above the generic physical activity targets."

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada Then you should start some reading on myokites, the LIFTMORE trial, and read the papers I linked, sorry. I can't help someone who refuses to see what's in plain daylight. Also, I did not state in this answer that more is always better. If I did, show me.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada Do I specify anywhere that people have to do excessive training? The guidelines of the WHO talk about 150-300 minutes. The studies I cite even specify that there does not seem to be an additional benefit from more than 2h of strength exercise a week. Thus, again, what are you trying to prove here?

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada First, you can always find a study that suits your personal bias. And narrative reviews are especially prone to that. Yet, you should read the whole paper: "Overall, current evidence suggests that higher CACS in athletes are similarly associated with an increased cardiovascular risk as in a nonathletic cohort. However, the absolute risk of CAC is likely lower in athletes as a result of several beneficial adaptations."

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada I included some papers which include further links. Yes, a causal relationship is hard to establish. That's a general truth in medicine though. When people with more lean muscle mass suffer less from chronic diseases over tens of thousands of data points and confounders were tried to be kept out of it to the best of the researchers' abilities, the evidence can nevertheless be called conclusive in the sense of prediction and relative health risk (like with lung cancer and smoking, for example).

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada It is not everything in there but there are epidemiological studies and those that investigate mechanisms showing it, like, e.g. this paper shows. I'll not cite all the research out there since this would overdo it, though.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@JimmyJamessupportsCanada There are cases and there is epidemological evidence. The latter shows that the more muscular people are, the less diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, and cognitive diseases they suffer from. The OP asked for "overall fitness". According to current evidence, this includes strength training. That is what I am saying. Don't shoot the messenger.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@WoJ: I assume you mean the dose-repsonse graph. What it is supposed to tell us is that 150-300 minutes of activity per week are considered an optimal dosage because the response (the health benefit) already is quite good while the risks (especially injury I presume) are still quite low. Basically a fancy graph telling us "less than 150 minutes is not enough, more than 300 minutes might result in unwanted side effects like overuse injury". That the 300 minute threshold is laughable if we talk about building up tolerance and dosage over slow progression should be kept in mind, though.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@Michael One might think so. The point stands: research shows that without reaching muscular exertion (or at least close to), the minimal effective dose is not reached. Neuromuscular effects, especially if coming from a very low level (neurological cases)? Sure. Cardiovascular effects? Yep. But I do not know of any controlled trial that shows significant effects of any kind of walking on the muscular strength level, which is what the WHO and age research are talking about.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 17 18:34

@AmazonDiesInDarkness Muscle maintenance or muscle building? Sure, it can build muscle if you include a lot of stairs/uphill parts, ideally with some systematic interval usage. Otherwise, I would like to see some evidence that the minimal effective dosage can be achieved.

Discussion on question by George Ntou…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.meta.stackexc...

Philip Klöcking

Jun 3 07:39

Biologists (Hull is a biologist) agree that while the current human genetics are coherent enough to tell from genetics what specimen is human and what not, this is a historical contingency and cannot serve to define humanity once and for all. The reason for that is that species need to express new genetic traits and a huge variety of these to be able to continuously adapt to environments. That is why your "there was a first human" argument fails as well, by the way: The shifts are continuous and over long periods of time.

Philip Klöcking

Jun 3 07:39

Sorry, linked the wrong post, actually. Try this one

Philip Klöcking

Jun 3 07:39

I listed some arguments related to your questions here. Does this help?

Discussion on question by TheMatrix E…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

Biggest voter migration in Germany consistently has been from far left (established party) to far right (new party) over the last few years.

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

@Rushi That's severely simplified, though. Europe is facing challenges of extremist voting patterns despite 5+ parties in parliament just based on the very same basic feelings of "something has to change substantially". Funnily, those extremist parties offer no new solutions on the challenges that solicited these feelings. In fact, they even ignore or deny them being a problem at all. Oh wait, sounds a lot like Trump, doesn't it? No coincidence.

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

In other words: When you ask questions that a) are written so that one has to assume that there was no prior research, b) use implicit premises with words that are usually not linked to thinking like that, and c) ask multiple questions about the nature of reality as such (instead of a single, answerable question)...it might not be due to the content or it being outside of the usual focus of philosophy (which, I might add, none of your questions were, technically) that the posts are recieved badly.

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

Well as far as I am aware, any significant scientific progress in the last 150 years was made through experimental designs aimed at answering very specific questions and giving results that completely turned expectations upside-down, leading to new theories with new predictions afterwards. That being said, I wrote about two things: first, how philosophy works (which is basically the science of analysing relations between semantic contents and keeping them apart) and how StackExchange works (which includes the need for succinct, singular questions with an explicit exposition).

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

You need to carefully keep the problems apart in order to pointedly ask questions. The problem is not asking "beyond philosophical dogma", it is thinking things through to the point where there is only one, clear problem and question. You make grand claims about simulation theory here without realising them being implied in what you write nor justifying them. That will make people reject this since it lacks the level of explicit reflection that makes things intelligible for others (and is one of the main tasks of philosophy).

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

The philosophical problem of whether we live in a simulation/ illusion is the same. The question whether we (or beings like us) could be able to create "brains in vats" (modern terminology) is a different one and also answered on this site if I am not mistaken. The third problem, ie. the questions of whether us creating brains in vats would essentially make us God or enable us to determine their conception of God (which are both very different from us creating Gods in important ways) is another one. What this alone should show you is that a problem seems to be your idea of the theory.

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

What makes you think that this is any different from the Cartesian Demon that feeds us with an illusionary reality that cannot be told apart by us from reality proper?

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

That being said, I am not sure I understand what "philosophical dogma" is supposed to mean. While there often is a wide consesus regarding some positions that quite obviously lost argumentatively from a historical perspective due to weaker arguments (like classical rationalism and positivism), I can only remember very few philosophers being dogmatic about one philosophy being "true". Incidentally, I think all of them were pretty arrogant and Hegelians. I would question another premise, too: what makes you think idea A is "new"? Most things are not really novel in philosophy.

Philip Klöcking

Nov 14, 2024 17:30

Well, even Aristotle scholars think that a lot of what he wrote can be considered obsolete or even plain wrong from a modern perspective, even if they may well become pretty "aggressive" and "single-minded" when you try to read something different into his texts (after 2000+ years of scholarship on his texts). Most just say there is something to be learned and I agree - mainly because 99.9% of supposedly great ideas or "new perspectives" have been beat to death (with great arguments) in antique times already, thus knowing these arguments is kinda helpful.

Discussion on answer by David Gudeman…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Oct 31, 2024 21:18

@DavidGudeman You should always be ready and willing to back up any claims made on StackExchange since that is kind of one of the core values of StackExchange.

Discussion on answer by Dark Malthorp…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Oct 30, 2024 12:08

Why does a Solipsist eat? Or panic when their life is in danger? Or feels the need for social interaction and warmth? You offer a non-argument. Solipsism cannot explain self-alienation or self-differentiation. Why should a supposed whole do that in the first place? It's running into the same pits as tsimtsum did in the Kaballah when trying to explain why God made anything that is not Himself in the first place.

Philip Klöcking

Oct 30, 2024 12:08

This answer presumes that solipsism was a full-blooded theory that explains a) anything in the first place, b) and everything other ontological hypotheses do, c) just as well as these other hypotheses. This can be challenged easily.

Discussion on answer by tkruse: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Oct 27, 2024 09:48

@PeterRankin As far as I know, people thought Hittites to be inaccurately described because they refused the notion that they had been more powerful than the great Kings of Judah (which is more based on ill-guided fundamentalism than science, since...why not?). As of Ron Neller, he seems to be pretty alone among (former) scientists with his interpretation, which also cannot really explain a whole bunch of other manifest geological phenomena.

Philip Klöcking

Oct 27, 2024 09:48

@PeterRankin Do you have any example for such a claim? Like, yes there is evidence that there have been great floods (e.g. breaking of the Bosporus), but there is also evidence tellings of that predate any biblical history by centuries. Therefore, I am interested in how to substantiate claims like yours.

Discussion on question by pie: Is phi…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Oct 6, 2024 09:24

@pie People do not have mandatory education in humanities anymore. You can hardly blame people for not using something they are never trained for/with.

The Symposium

A Party Space for Philosophy.SE! Both philosophy and mundane c...

Philip Klöcking

Aug 31, 2024 06:39

@Tsundoku I asked the CM responsible for this election directly in our mods chat whether this was intended

Philip Klöcking

Aug 27, 2024 22:17

@NotThatGuy I undeleted it and think it should be openly discussed since it started to affect a portion of the site itself. Hope I'll find time to put that amd some more into an answer soon but am really short on time atm.

Philip Klöcking

Aug 15, 2024 10:53

It might also fit the bill for a comparison with Thomism since that has foundationalist flavours IIRC

Philip Klöcking

Aug 15, 2024 10:52

@GratefulDisciple One of the most comprehensive systematic Kantian epistemology is probably the one developed by Sellars. A good discussion of it can be found in this book

Philip Klöcking

Aug 15, 2024 07:20

@GratefulDisciple Interesting requests, give me some time to think about proper answers and sources

Philip Klöcking

Aug 13, 2024 18:56

@RyderRude Not according to my experience in academia 🤣

Philip Klöcking

Aug 13, 2024 15:50

@RyderRude That's the question. For some reason, people don't seem to be very chatty round here 😅

Philip Klöcking

Aug 6, 2024 20:21

The best fellas in UK universities as far as I experienced it were those engaging in lively discussions in the campus cafe/pub, some senior lecturers among them. Never encountered anything like that in German academia

Philip Klöcking

Aug 6, 2024 20:20

@JuliusHamilton This phenomenon was actually true up until the early 20th century. Only later, people started to remain in and build their ivory towers higher and higher I feel.

Philip Klöcking

Aug 6, 2024 20:18

Yeah, considering the amount of discussion going on in comments (which is mostly partisan), chat rooms are surprisingly short-lived here in general

Discussion on answer by Lawnmower Man…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Aug 28, 2024 14:58

@RonJohn You confuse instantiations of numbers (particular sets of particular objects) with the abstract objects that are numbers themselves.

Philip Klöcking

Aug 28, 2024 14:58

@user77058 Both physics and mathematics are human practices involving abstraction. I do not see how any of this would have bearing on the question of mathematical realism. This would need separate argumentation.

Discussion on answer by Jo Wehler: If…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Aug 17, 2024 05:10

@Sammich Determinism and physicalism are perfectly well describing an important aspect or plain of human life. The most common mistake, though, is a caregory mistake: human life is obviously richer than having a physical body that does stuff. The human being consists of experiencing this body and having a self that is actively positioned within and in relation to both the physical body and our experienced body. Are these aspects of human life wrong because they cannot explain physical events? They won't disappear, they're human. There, there's plenty of space for free will.

Discussion on question by TheMatrix E…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...

Philip Klöcking

Aug 12, 2024 09:40

This is a heavily loaded question. It makes so many assumptions without any critical reflection it's hard to take seriously. How can you even make these bold statements and then present to us a question that only makes sense if we take them as granted? What do you base all this on? For starters, people with IQ differences of 10 or 15+ basically live in different worlds. What constitutes a "similar share" when people experience their worlds differently? Is the inability to deal with official forms as problematic as having problems to understand why they are unnecessarily complex?