Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 15 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 17 >
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.


Contents


[edit] March 16

[edit] Modal logic

What quantifier applies to the subject of statments that are indeterminent at all possible worlds ? " Possible - possible " , or " necessarily - possible " ? Thank you. 206.74.74.42 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Willie

Ths question is better posed at the Mathematics reference desk. If you post it there, could you explain what you mean by "indeterminent"? In usual modal logic possibly possible = possible (⋄⋄p = ⋄p, using the duality between ⋄ and □ and axiom 4).  --LambiamTalk 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am trying to FIND something IMPORTANT!

I need help on,how to go about getting a birth certificiate from Germany!My boyfrind/finacee' is trying to get his birth certificiate,now residing in Nw Orleans,LA.He lost it-do to Katrina!If any-1 can help me,PLEASE DO!I have all his information,just like he has allmy information!I am the only one here for him!

                                  Thank's,
         
                                    Lexie
You might try the German honorary consul in New Orleans; you can find contact information here. However, you may get a better result by contacting the consulate general in Houston. That contact information is available on the same website. The consulate should be able to provide you with the information you need. Carom 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
For a minute I thought she was looking for her boyfriend's fiancée's birth certificate. The Jade Knight 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If your boyfriend's parents were in the military then the US Department of Defense will have a birth certificate for him. Getting it can be quite a trial though. 161.222.160.8 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, in written English it is standard to place a space after punctuation marks. Secondly, why can't he do this? He has some obvious advantages in accessing personal information about himself. Thirdly, a German Consulate does appear to be your best bet. 194.80.32.12 22:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Predicting the future

Suppose on March 11 2008 I´m walking down the street and a car hits me. I pass out. I get brain damage and amnesia: due to the accident, I lose all my memories from the last year and there is no way I can get them back. When I wake up in the hospital I see a doctor and he asks me "what day is today?". I say "March 11 2007".

Everybody knows that a whole year has passed, but what it looks like to me is that I was calmly doing whatever it was that I was doing on March 11 2007 and suddenly I´m a hospital and this doctor tells me I jumped a whole year, just like that.

Since March 11 2007 has passed and none of this happened to me, no doctor appeared out of nowhere and I didn´t wake up in a hospital, can I then be sure I will not get involved in such a car accident on March 11 2008? A.Z. 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No more daytime tv for you, for a start... --Wetman 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Also I need you to repay the $67,000 I lent you in 2000, with interest. 71.100.9.74 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
All you have to do is stay inside that day. Clarityfiend 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't be sure. Of course you didn´t wake up in a hospital, but that is not because the accident will not happen, but because it did not happen yet. Nothing in your experience contradicts the hypothetical scenario. The memory loss you will suffer is of memories you actually built up during the year, including your memory of posting this question on a Wikipedia reference desk.  --LambiamTalk 09:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Lambiam, thanks for the answer. But it still looks to me like my experience contradicts the hypothetical scenario, even though (I know) my future memories are "built up during the year". Using your own words, the fact that my future memories are actually built during the year does not appear to contradict the fact that I already know I will not lose my current memories in the future. A.Z. 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that you're currently unconscious or dead and that reading this page is your afterlife, or just part of the wondrous imaginative powers of the brain or some devious machine. Watch Vanilla Sky or The Matrix if you want to waste some imaginary time in an agreeable manner. --Dweller 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the answer, Dweller! I watched The Matrix already and I really liked it. A.Z. 04:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No you a no more wise now whether or not you will have an accident on 11th March 2008, short answer. I cannot even see any logical reason that would suggest that somehow something that may happen one year later would have an affect that day. If you have an accident on 11 Mar 2008 it will still be 11 Mar 2008, irregardless of whether or not you remember what happened for a determined time before the accident. ny156uk 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The only thing you've protected against is that you won't have an accident that is exactly a year long amnesia. You could very well have a accident tomorrow with shorter period of amnesia. -Wooty Woot? contribs 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. I am actually protected against many kinds of amnesia, for instance a two year long amnesia from an accident less than two years from now. But, yes, I can get other kinds of amnesia like a twelve hour amnesia starting 24 hours from now. A.Z. 05:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
how are they protected against 'exactly a year long amnesia'? Apart from the likelihood that amnesia isn't going to be so kind as to be exactly a year. Sorry don't mean to be rude, just i feel like i've missed something in the original question, as from what i've seen it seems a really strange question. ny156uk 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The question simply assumes that if remember something now, you are guaranteed against forgetting it in the future. Therefore, if you remember walking around right now, you are guaranteed against some event in the future causing you to forget today. Because the assumption is wrong, any attempt to answer the question is futile. The assumption should be addressed first. --Kainaw (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the car accident is going to happen and I am going to lose my memory and forget this very moment right now. Then, you would be able to say next year: "Look, I was right! You said on March 16 that you could not forget that moment, yet you did forget it, you forgot all that Reference Desk stuff you wrote!" However, this is only what it would look like to you. To me, it would look like I was on March 11 2007 and suddenly out of nothing the next thing I would see would be on March 2008 and there would be a guy telling me it was 2008 and I had done some stuff back on 2007. I would only be aware of what I did on March 16 2007 because you told me. But I am sure now that this did not happen. I am sure the March 11 passed and the next day was a normal March 12, with no time lapse other than the normally expected. If I were to be in a car accident one year from then which would cause the described damages to my brain, it would seem to me that I jumped one year. It does not seem that way to me, so I did not get involved in the car accident. Now, I perfectly understand there is something in my argument which I don´t understand yet. Maybe the answer is in the commentary above, but it has not solved the problem to me. A.Z. 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't this question already asked about a year ago? ---Sluzzelin talk 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
lol... you're so mean =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You appear to feel that your question is a paradox. It is merely a false assumption. No matter how much you believe March 16, 2007 did not happen, it doesn't change history. You don't have to believe that history took place for it to have taken place. You don't have to remember something for it to have happened. If fact, most things the Universe happen without your knowledge or memory or, if you are one of those "science is evil" people, without your belief. So, I hope you can see that the false assumption is creating what you feel is a paradox. Perhaps it is easier to see with a silly assumption. How do hedgehogs keep from popping all the balloons at their birthday parties? The answer is that I made two false assumptions. First, hedgehogs don't celebrate their birthdays (every day is eat-poop-sleep day). Second, hedgehogs will pop balloons regardless of what day it is. --Kainaw (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I really want to understand what you´re saying. Unfortunately, I did not learn anything from your answer yet. I want either to agree with you that I made some false assumption or disagree with you and be able to show the arguments that support my disagreement. But I don´t get what you´re saying. You said before that "the question simply assumes that if you remember something now, you are guaranteed against forgetting it in the future." But I don´t see how the question assumes anything like that. It actually seems to come to that conclusion based on the fact that people who have amnesia will experience something like what I described, i.e., a "jump in time". That conclusion ("if you remember something now, you are guaranteed against forgetting it in the future") does not apply to other people. I can´t be sure that you are not going to lose your memory just because you appear to have your memory now. But I can be sure I wont lose my memory because I know I did not experience something like a jump in time so far and that´s what my life would look like if I had lost my memory the way I described: I would have gone directly twelve months into the future. That would be my experience. Now I´m just repeating myself. You said "No matter how much you believe March 16, 2007 did not happen, it doesn't change history. You don't have to believe that history took place for it to have taken place. You don't have to remember something for it to have happened." How does it apply to my question? When did I ever say the contrary? What is the thing which I don´t remember and because of that I think that did not happen? Even if I had lost my memory of March 16, I would still believe March 16 happened, even if I didn´t remember it. Please, help me here. Just explain your argument better and apply your conclusions to the scenario I created. If you can, of course... A.Z. 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Your question comes close to the Grandfather paradox. Our article describes the paradox: “Suppose someone traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveller's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveller's parents (and by extension, the traveller himself) would never have been conceived. But this would imply that he could not have travelled back in time after all, which in turn implies the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveller would have been conceived, allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather.” Although as Kainaw points out your question is not a true paradox, you may perhaps find this real paradox informative and intresting. S.dedalus 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I know that paradox already. It´s very paradoxical. I don´t really know whether my question is a paradox or not, nor do I know if I care. I just would like people to answer it or acknowledge the fact that they can´t. By the way, I really like your favorite quotes on your user page.A.Z. 05:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 2007 and 2008 are two different years no matter if you are conscious or not. The events will not repeat themselves in any way.Also you are in hospital AFTER the car accident and thus would miss the time frame anyway.hotclaws**== 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I would love to really comprehend quite what this question is asking. Can you try to rephrase it? Would like to help but don't really understand the question ny156uk 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
What makes it difficult is that I don´t speak English very well, and that´s like having your hands tied or something when explaining something to someone. I´m really constrained by my vocabulary, for instance. But let me try again. There´s a possible situation in which I would acquire amnesia and I would write in my diary "dear diary, today I was watching TV. But suddenly I was not on the couch watching TV anymore: I found myself in a hospital and everyone of my family was around me. They told me a year had passed since the day I was watching TV. My own diary has 365 new entries which I don´t remember having written, so I guess they´re right. Now I guess I lost a whole year of experiences, of knowledge I acquired, of emotions etc. This is how I feel. And this is who I am: someone who has lived one year less than my chronological age. People around me had a different experience: to them, I was a whole year with them and then I lost my memory. But to me I really wasn´t. To me, this last year didn´t exist at all: I went directly through twelve months without a single experience." Please, tell me if you don´t understand it yet. My own personal experience tells me that I have not gone twelve months into the future in the last month. That´s because if I had, my experience would look like the one described above. And it doesn´t. That´s just it. It´s really simple. So, I asked if I am protected against a future amnesia. A.Z. 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I re-read it. No, you have no protection whatsoever. Just because the 11th has passed, doesn't mean you couldn't get in a car accident later and think it was the 11th. -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That´s OK, but this answer does not do anything for me. I wish I could speak a better English as to explain my doubts better... I did not ask the question so a lot of people would say either "you are protected" or "you are not". This would have no relevance. I want to understand how all of this happens, how can I be living this day and then in the future I say that I have no recollection whatsoever of today? Your answer just says one thing does not cause the other. It must seem really obvious to you all, so I am even embarassed of not seeing it so clearly. I believe you can not be sure whether I am going to be in a car accident or not just because I didn´t lose my memory so far. Of course you can´t, since to you nothing would change, my behavior now does not contradict that scenario of having amnesia in the future. Now, my own personal experience —to which you have no access— does contradict that scenario! I´m afraid this question will get out of the Reference Desk in a few days and I´ll not have acquired any new knowledge about this matter. A.Z. 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you female? I feel I should give that ancient piece of advice about wearing matching underwear. That's the most important thing to worry about in case of car accidents. 194.80.32.12 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You think I´m female just because I said I had a diary and because I called it "dear". I know that because I´ve been editing Wikipedia for almost a year now and no one raised any questions about my gender until now, 16 minutes after I talk about diaries and stuff. I´m not female, not that it matters at all. Your joke offended me as a human being. I think you should think a little about how you see women. Maybe you wanna go to a therapist or something. I like the Reference Desk and I like Wikipedia and I´ll not be quiet when I see someone bringing sexism in here. If you are willing to delete your comment out of my question, you can then erase mine as well. An apology would also be nice.A.Z. 22:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
A.Z., I should first admit that I haven't been following the entire thread of this discussion, as I simply can't understand what you're asking, nor what people are responding, so I wouldn't be of my help. Like Dweller though, if you're interested in exploring these freaky philosophical questions (when I say freaky, I only mean it in a positive way of course!) One great film that immediately comes to mind is Blade Runner. I don't know if you've seen it or not. However I'm not sure if you're simply "happily curious" about this whole topic, or on the other hand, undergoing some sort of troubling existential crisis. If it's the former, I suggest you watch Blade Runner, if it's the latter, I suggest you go out and rent the absolute silliest, most nonsensical comedy you can think of, as from my experience the best cure for an existential crisis is a really, really dumb, yet really, really funny movie.
And please, for your own well being, don't take the previous post too seriously. I'm probably the worst person possible to turn to when it comes to dealing with offensive posts, but I've finally come to realize, thanks to a few good wikifriends, that in these situations it's best to just ignore irritating posts. They're inevitable, and there's nothing you or I can do to prevent them. Don't get your hopes up. It's unlikely you'll get any sort of apology or re-edit of the post. Whoever "194.80.32.12" is, it's his/her problem, not yours. It's best to focus on those who support you (such as myself), than those who irritate you. Your question was obviously an interesting one, and (despite the fact that I can't understand it!) obviously a benefit to the RefDesk, as so many seem to have been showing interest in it. We've been writing a bit, (albeit strictly about fluorescent lighting so far), but don't hesitate to write again about whatever's on your mind. Loomis 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, I like you (that´s what´s on my mind). Thanks for telling me not to hesitate! I´m often afraid of saying what´s on my mind because people can make me upset or even worse. They many times don´t try to understand others, including me, and this fact makes me really sad, so I try to avoid facing it. I don´t know if you knew that I was wondering if people were thinking I was just not benefiting the RefDesk, but your assertion of the contrary made me feel really good. I´m glad that guy in Canada which I never met took the time to write all those things, including advice on how to handle that joke up there and including the fact that he supports me.
As for the question, I´ve been thinking about it since I was a child, and sometimes it can lead to a crisis, as many other questions can (of course all of those questions are actually one question which is the fundamental question).
I´m gonna rent Blade Runner some day, but not right now. I never watched it. How come everyone here thinks watching movies is the best way to explore philosophical questions? A.Z. 06:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I will try this one last time, but I feel that you are purposely refusing to let go of your assumptions - which is why you feel it is confusing. First fact: there is no time jump. You will never, under any circumstances, jump a year into the future. I'll explain in a moment, but if you cannot even contemplate that you won't jump a year into the future, you will never understand the actual issue. So, as I was saying, your assumption that there is some sort of time jump is causing the question.
What actually happens? You live from March 11, 2007 to March 11, 2008. You eat. You sleep. You go on the Internet. You hang out with friends. You do everything you would normally do for the entire year. Then, on March 11, 2008, you have an event that does damage to your brain, causing you to forget everything you did over the last year. You didn't jump through time. You lived the entire year and then forgot it.
In fact, this happens all the time - just not to that extreme. Many drunks lose nights, days, or even whole weekends. They have no memory of it at all. It doesn't mean that they jumped through time. They just don't remember what they did. You question is equivalent to a drunk puking in behind a bar asking, "Hey! If I'm puking here, then I won't forget what happened tongiht, right?" Well, it would actually come out like, "Heeeeeeeeey maaaan. If I'mmmm... I'm.... uuuuuuh. You. I know you? Man. What was I.... brack..." Either way, the answer is "no." Just because you realize what is going on at any moment in time does not mean that you will remember it. It doesn't matter if you forget due to alcohol poisoning or brain damage from a car accident. --Kainaw (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you´re saying. But how do you define "to realize what is going on at any moment"? And what is to "remember it"? And what is the difference between both? I for one can´t see any difference between realizing something and remembering it. Can you? I mean: you have no way of saying whether the drunk man was aware of what he was saying or not. He will not be able to tell whether he was aware, since he doesn´t remember it. So, how can you say they´re not the same thing, awareness and memory? A.Z. 03:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Realizing that something is happening and remembering it happening are two completely different things with almost no relation to one another. I assume you drive. What was the make, model, and color of the tenth car you passed while driving down the road yesterday? Unless you are freak, you don't remember. That does not mean that you did not realize that you were driving. That does not mean that you did not realize you were passing a car. That does not mean that you did not realize the car was of a specific model and a specific color. At every concious moment, we absorb a lot of information, sight, sounds, smells... The primary function of memory is to quickly forget almost all of it. We only remember small tidbits of every day. Even then, we don't remember the specific information. We remember trends. That is how you can have a sitation where two people experience the exact same thing but have very clear memories that conflict with one another. Memories are altered by what happens before and after the memory. So, I hope you can see that memory of an experience and direct realization of an experience while it is happening are two completely different things. A very simple way to think about it: If I ask you what you are eating while you are eating it, you have no trouble telling me. You realize what it is because you realize you are eating it. If I ask you what you ate for lunch on March 18, 1985, you won't know because you don't remember. That doesn't mean you didn't realize what you were eating on that day as you ate it. You just don't remember.
All of that goes into the explanation that just because you don't remember that you lived a year does not mean you didn't live the year - which was your initial question. You asked if experience life today meant that you would not have amnesia and forget today. Instead of saying no, I wanted you to understand why the answer is no. --Kainaw (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you know the difference between when something is happening and when it´s not? As Dweller said, "it's possible that you're currently unconscious or dead and that reading this page is your afterlife", in which case everything would be only memories. I don´t see how the fact that I don´t remember the color of the car doesn´t imply that I am not aware of which color it is. If I don´t remember it, I´m not aware of it right now. I don´t know if back then I was, and I don´t know what it would mean to say that I was because I don´t know what is "back then". I don´t even know if there was a "back then" because all I know about "back then" are my memories. And the color of the car is not in my memory. The difference you are talking about seems to be that sometimes our memories are more vivid than others. When they are lively and clear like that, it´s like they are "happening", but there doesn´t seem to be any fundamental difference between memories of what is "happening" and memories of what happened, i.e., less clear memories. Just to remember what we´re talking about in the first place: you said "because you realize what is going on at any moment in time does not mean that you will remember it." You didn´t prove this and you will not prove this until you find a difference between realizing and remembering things. A.Z. 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you've left the realm of your questions completely and gone into the "Does anything exist?" question. My answer is based on the assumption that things do exist. If you want to go into the realm of "There are only memories and there is no past, no future, no new - just memories," then, the answer to your question is still "no." Why? Because you don't exist, March 11 doesn't exist, the car that might hit you doesn't exist - so your question doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't exist. With nothing existing to counter an answer, any answer can be correct. I could answer "hedgehog" and be correct.
Back in the world of accpeted reality, realizing an event takes place when it happens. You don't realize an event years later in a memory. You then realize the memory of the event. It is like looking at the moon and taking a picture of it. When you look up in the night sky and see the moon, you are actually realizing the moon is there. When you look at a photo of that night years later, you are realizing that there is a photo of the event and you can question how accurate that photo is. If you get in a car accident and tbe photo is burned up, does that mean that you never saw the moon and took a picture of it? It is silly to claim that destroying photos destroys the events that they depict. If there were true, just destroy all the pictures of slavery and then slavery never took place, right? This is the same as claiming that brain damage that destroys a memory destroys the event that is remembered. --Kainaw (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I am really sorry I left the realm of my question. I only did it because I wasn´t intelligent enough to answer what you said without doing so. Since I still can´t argue properly without losing all our frames and assumptions, I guess I must stop this discussion now and prepare myself for a while for restarting it again in the future when I´ll be able to understand what I´m thinking better: I may either find out that I agree with you or I may understand completely what is my objection to your assertions so I can explain them to you without putting in doubt everything. Thanks for taking all the time! A.Z. 14:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just be forewarned that going into the "nothing exists" point of view is not a solution to any problem like this. It is an excape from tackling the problem. It can be an escape from any problem except the "Do we exist?" problem. For example, if you take a test and it asks what 5+7 is, you could answer "numbers do not exist". However, that is not a real answer. It is an escape from the question. --Kainaw (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China autonomy/democracy question

Generally speaking, people fighting for Tibet are generally foreigners, but people fighting for Taiwan are mainly Taiwanese and people fighting for democracy in Hong Kong are almost always Hong Kongers. Why? 203.109.167.159 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that part of the reason is that the Chinese 'occupation' of Tibet has often been brutal, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, whilst the same cannot be said about Hong Kong and Taiwan. In addition, prominent figures such as the Dalai Lama have provided a lot of publicity about the issue. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure I really understand the terms of your question. In the first two examples you give what exactly do you men by 'fighting', and who are the 'foreigners' fighting for Tibet? What exactly is it, moreover, that the Taiwanese are fighting? Officially Taiwan is part of China under the One-China policy, and indeed continues to refer to itself as the Republic of China. There are certainly moves towards full political independence, though the government in Beijing has indicated that it will take a very serious view of any move in this direction. I have never heard of 'Hong Kongers', other in relation to an organisation called the Hong Konger Front. The people of Hong Kong are, in the main, ethnic Chinese, and the whole territory is now under the overall authority of the People's Republic of China, though it continues to enjoy a high degree of autonomy under the One country, two systems policy, introduced by Deng Xiaoping. There is an active pro-democracy movement, made up, well, to use your neologism, of 'Hong Kongers', which is really no great surprise. It might help me give a more detailed and precise answer if you could make your question a little more specific. Clio the Muse 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Taiwanese actually have a lot of reason to fight against the Republic of China. Under the early Kuomintang they suffered significant abuses from the Mainland Nationalists. Personally, on the Tibet issue, my sympathies lie with Beijing, but that's by-the-by. 194.80.32.12 22:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papal Infallibility

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Pope is infallible on matters of religion and morality. I don't understand. As a Christian, I've already known that it is the Bible that is infallible. So I have three questions:

1. The reason that Christians claim that the Bible is infallible is because it comes from God and Jesus Christ. So by saying that the Pope is infallible, are Catholics saying that the Pope and the Catholic Chucrh itself is as much of a source of divine revelation, inspiration, and communication as the Bible?

2. If that is so, then do they have any evidence to prove it?

3. If the Pope is infallible, then the claims and teachings of the Pope should not, or perhaps never, contradict that of the Bible. But are there any teachings of the Pope which are discovered to contradict that of the Bible? If so then what are they?

4. Are there any statements and passages in the Bible saying that the Bible itself is the only and only necessary source of divine revelation and inspiration, and that we don't also need somebody or something else like the Pope to tell us from God what we need to know about Christianity and Christian ethics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.166.182 (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Have you looked at Papal infallibility? I'm not intimately familiar with the dogma of the Catholic Church, however, I can give some quick answers.
  1. Yes, Catholics generally see the Church as equal to the Bible.
  2. Catholics view the Church as directly and linearly descended from Jesus' Apostles, particularly St. Peter, who they view as the first Pope.
  3. I'm sure pretty much anything a Pope has said could be interpreted as contradicting the Bible - you aren't going to have much luck getting an objective answer on that.
  4. No there isn't anything in the Bible that says that - the Bible doesn't reference itself, since it took hundreds of years for the Biblical canon to be firmly established. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The concept of Papal Infallibility is one that non-Catholics, and those actively hostile to Catholicism, almost invariably-and wilfully-misunderstand. It might be best if I quoted what the Second Vatican Council had to say on the subject:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogitive of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on the matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.

Infallibility (NOT impeccability) belongs to the Pope as head of the bishops, and is based ultimately on Christ's mandate. The doctrine promises that the Church as a whole will never fall from Christ's teachings, even if individual Catholics do. The Pope, as such, has no special grace, and the truth is not whatever he cares to preach. Infallibility, in other words, is not a substitute for theological and biblical study. It might help you to understand the doctrine as a whole if you read all of the information given here [1]. Clio the Muse 11:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The pope is only supposed to be infallible when he presents argument a certain way. I understand the expression is 'speaking ex cathedra' In times gone by, the pope would transmit messages to clergy by way of the papal bull. The word bulletin is derived from this.

It is not correct to say the Christian Bible is infallible, according to mainstream theology. The bible is cannon to Christian belief, but that does not mean the text is a road map. Indeed, it is limiting the value of the bible, and the sincerity of the faith of the individual worshipper, to ascribe meaning beyond those claims ascribed to god. Infallible is a concept irrelivant to faith. DDB 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogitive of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. I don't understand this bit at all. How can mere humans proclaim that Christ doctrine is infallible. That's pure arrogance!

That's like saying "although ten year old kids do not enjoy mathematical competency , they can nevertheless proclaim their Math Teachers mathematical teaching to be infallible. How would the ten year old kids know this? Let me guess, because all the adults told them so! Therefore the Math Teacher must be mathematically infallible. That's just pure blind trust without evidence. See Lie to children . 220.239.107.13 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You misread the statement. The word "infallibly" is an adverb, modifying the verb "proclaim", not an adjective applied predicatively to "Christ's doctrine". In other words, if the Holy Church proclaims in a certain matter that it is Christ's doctrine that such and such (for example that people of the same sex can or cannot be joined in holy matrimony), then this proclamation cannot fail to correspond to the true intent of Christ's teaching. The Bible itself can be and is interpreted in multiple ways, allowing some doubt about what it is that is supposedly infallibly true, and according to Christian doctrine the old covenant no longer applies ("invalidating" large parts of the Old Testament), so an infallible authority has some utility to an organized religion. Also, people have different opinions regarding which books are canonical, and presumably you don't believe that non-canonical books are infallible.  --LambiamTalk 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hallucinogens and truth

what does a person on hallucinogens feel 'philosophically' usually?... that truth is absolute or do they feel the 'relativity of trut' ? I on't have any experience w/hallucinogens that's y I'd apreciate answers from ppl that do have it. thanx in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.142.36.108 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The few times that I have been on hallucinogens, I was not generally thinking in philosophical terms. That said, I remember thinking to myself, while on acid at Burning Man and seeing some unbelievable sights, that I could not trust my perceptions, since I was on acid. So, I guess that would be the "relativity of truth". Marco polo 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, wonderful, Marco, it's time for personal confessions! My experience, if I have to think of it in philosophical terms, was of the dissolution of a world of solid certainties and rational constructs to something fluid and sub-rational, exhilarating and frightening at one and the same time. I threw me afterwards into a brief flirtation with existentialism, especially as it is mediated through the novel Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre: The essential thing is contingency. I mean that one cannot define existence as a necessity. To exist is simply to be there; those who exist let themselves be encountered, but you can never deduce anything from them. I believe there are people who have understood this. Only they have tried to overcome this contingency by necessary, casual being. But no necessary being can explain existence: contingency is not a delusion, a probability, which can be dissipated; it is the absolute, consequently, the perfect free gift. All is free, this park, this city and myself.
My experience was much like Clio's, though I had not thought to connect it to existentialism. The quote from Sartre, though, is very fitting. Marco polo 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There is also a rather vivid image in the book of walking through a strange kind of forest, but I'm not sure I really want to go into the specific details! Now, please do not let mummy know about any of this! Clio the Muse 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that an effect of heroin is similar to that first time one feels love for another, in puberty. I'm also told that the effect becomes less over time. Desirable, but never to be recaptured. DDB 22:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that the (apparently) most intriguing and gifted intellects always wind up letting you down with sordid personal anectdotes? Winners_Don't_Use_Drugs!! dr.ef.tymac 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC) DISCLAIMER: This is a rhetorical question offered in jest. Personal attacks, gifted intellects and sordid anectdotes are all a figment of your imagination. As am I. Any similarity to actual delusions, persons, events, burning men, forests, existentialists, relativities, truths, muses, and contingencies either living, dead or otherwise would be purely "coincidental" (if there were such a thing). If this had been an actual emergency, then it still is. Fortunately, you either missed it or it missed you, or not, to be determined earlier in the future.
Thank you for the neat little bourgeois homily! What next-True Love Waits? Seriously now, I too am joking. I do appreciate your concern, but I was addressing myself strictly to the point under consideration, and in abstract intellectual terms, not advocating that other people follow my particular roads to freedom. Conventional I am not, nor have I ever been. Clio the Muse 23:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Anyway, no doubt you saw through the trite sloganeering as just a ploy to goad you into sharing more details! ;) Your points are all well taken. Now, for another trite saying: Just Say No to restraints on Cognitive liberty! :) Highest regards, Clio. dr.ef.tymac 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
And to you, Dreftymac! Nice try, but my personal confessions are always of a limited nature. After all, the girl has to preserve some degree of mystery! Clio the Muse 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many drugs called hallucinogen. The Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants and psychedelic experience pages have a lot of information about them and various ways they can effect a person's perceptions.

As to whether people feel a relative or absolute truth (about reality I assume) when on a hallucinogen -- what about how sober people feel? Some people feel truth to be absolute, others relative, or something in between. The same thing can be made about how people feel on hallucinogens: it depends.

A lot of these drugs have mild effects or are taken at doses producing mild effects. To get at the topic, it may help to look at the the more powerful end of the spectrum, where a drug's specific effects are more pronounced and obvious (please note I'm not encouraging people to go take high doses of powerful drugs -- it can be dangerous in many ways).

Some of the more powerful drugs can sometimes trigger egolessness. The breakdown of one's sense of self and identity can, again depending on the person and the context, tend toward an alarming death-like stripping away of one's attachments, memories, knowledge, etc. -- or a joyous merging and sense of oneness. Additionally, there may be experiences of depersonalization, during which one's sense of reality breaks down -- perhaps into a dream-like world unlike ordinary reality, or perhaps into confusion and dissociation. Also, some of these drugs can induce ecstatic feelings and/or panic, along with a whole range of possible effects such as feelings of mystical revelation and enlightenment or, going the other way, delusional psychosis.

As to how these kind of experiences feel in terms of whether truth is absolute or relative, remember that drugs are temporary, growing stronger at first, then wearing off. So at first the possible feelings described above would strengthen -- one's sense of self, reality, etc, may start to break down, without the person knowing just how far it will go. Then there is the process of returning to one's ordinary self and to ordinary reality. Different people react differently to this kind of thing. Say two people have similar feeling of divine revelation and an absolute truth while on one of these drugs. As it wears off, one of them may realize it was all just a drug-induced hallucination and reject the feelings of absolute truth, while the other person might come away still believing the revelation.

In other words, the question involves quite a few complex issues that make it difficult to answer other than saying "it depends". Pfly 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodwill Ambassador

Hi all... I was today curious about how Goodwill Ambassadors get appointed, anyone know? Goodwill Ambassador does not have any info. And neither do any of the articles linked in. Thanks. --Spundun 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_Archives_Humanities_2007_March_16_717f.html"