Why does my laptop's hard drive bog down at least twice a day?

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T15:00:24.289803+00:00

dVnt helped me by showing how to extract the unistall string from the registry. It's gone now, and I'm downloading AVG as we speak. I'll try this for a few weeks and see what happens. Thanks!

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:52:30.521731+00:00

Science was birthed by philosophy, but it isn't a branch of it. See here. But to say that something is "outshing" something else, you step into epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. You need a good grounding in philosophy to be able to think critically.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:50:40.721781+00:00

Nice! Thanks!

I'm the IT guy at my work because I know a notch more than everybody else, and they all think I'm a genius (which involves googling the problem). Clearly, I'm only mid-low level. :)

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:27:59.567861+00:00

I'm going to uninstall MSE, but it doesn't show up in the add/remove programs box. It also can't be disabled, because when I try to disable it and save changes, it says "Syntax Error".

LostOposum · 2012-05-21T14:26:14.438054+00:00

I find Aristotle's take to be attractive, especially when it comes to the mind/body problem. It's also attractive for modern biology, which seems to be replete with forms and structures. I find it hard to believe that this is all just "in our minds." Not to mention, the tangential problem that the method of putting everything in our minds if it doesn't fit the physicalist reduction model may very well end up entailing dualism of the mind, which is an implausible theory.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:22:47.488644+00:00

Doesn't even show up in the Programs and Features window. Can't uninstall it.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:17:54.133844+00:00

Huh. Well that's a new one. Disabling MSE, but when I click "Save Changes" it says "Invalid Syntax."

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:13:56.949420+00:00

I'm considering uninstalling it and going back to AVG or Avira for awhile. See if that helps.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:13:09.197704+00:00

Since you clearly contribute to tech support, why don't you continue to do so until you have something to say about philosophy? I suggest reading a good logic textbook first. Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler is a good one.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:12:02.396514+00:00

Ok, I'll check that out next time it does it. Thanks. Also, MsMpEng is making a racket, even though Defender is not and never has been running. I do use MSE though. I wonder if I should try dumping it and going back to AVG....

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:08:06.936876+00:00

It's turned off. Just checked right now. I do have MSE installed and running, however.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:04:14.903111+00:00

It is and always has been turned off.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:03:40.889238+00:00

Do you have anything to contribute?

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T14:03:15.693800+00:00

the shadows of philosophy

This dichotomy, that philosophy is trying to do the same thing that science is, is a false one. I linked to Pigliucci's article, but of course no one will read it because people prefer comfortable falsities ("science works better than philosophy!") to reality.

like the fruit of knowledge he can touch and feel

And how do you know that it is wiser to go for knowledge that you can touch and feel? Hint: you have to step outside of physical knowledge to argue for that.

One is sneaking a quick glance from beyond the limits of the proposed knowledge boundary in order to assert knowledge of the boundary itself: a knowledge claim derived from a venue which the knowledge claim itself declares as "off-limits" to human knowledge.

hammiesink · 2012-05-21T13:54:45.279329+00:00

Doesn't seem to be. Right now it's doing it and P.E. is telling me it's both MsMpEng and svchost that is active.

LostOposum · 2012-05-21T07:25:07.730783+00:00

But why, specifically, can form not be a quality that arises from absolute elements like matter, energy, space, and time?

The key point is whether form really exists "out there", or if it's just in our minds. Convenient ways of talking about quarks and electrons for our interests, but nothing beyond that. Physicalists say the latter. There is no such thing as an elephant. The quarks and electrons that make up the elephant are not distinguished from the quarks and electrons that make up the atmosphere next to the elephant, and so on. It's just one big cloud of particles, perhaps denser in some areas, and that's it. That's the view of physicalists. Followers of Aristotle would say that form or structure is real, and not just a product of our minds.

hungrylikeacanine · 2012-05-21T06:59:01.458252+00:00

You're right, by the way, on my misapplication of the term 'argument from authority'.

Oops. Should have kept reading. :) Oh well, my earlier response is there for others to read, then.

hungrylikeacanine · 2012-05-21T06:57:29.881466+00:00

Argument from authority.

It's very specifically not a fallacy when the authority in question is an expert in the relevant field. From my textbook Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler:

Appeal to authority – correct form:

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
Therefore, there’s a presumption that A is true.

Incorrect forms omit premise 2 or 3, or conclude that A must be true.

LostOposum · 2012-05-21T06:19:09.443489+00:00

I still need to read Oderberg's chapter on this, but from what I skimmed so far, he said for example that something of the form "circle" can give rise to something of the form "square", but that the universal circularity cannot change into squareness. It's just that circles are no longer around.

Interesting that Anscombe and Geach, Catholics and Thomists both, had that to say about Aristotle.

LostOposum · 2012-05-21T02:13:34.424255+00:00

Philosophy of Mind by Jaworski.

LostOposum · 2012-05-21T02:08:50.294996+00:00

It's too big a topic. I'm studying a book on it now. It emphasizes structure or form, whereas materialists want to say that there is no form except in our minds. But biology is loaded with structures and forms.

LostOposum · 2012-05-21T01:57:21.289463+00:00

If form exists, it is independent of matter because, for example, the form of elephant is over and above any individual elephant. This article for example is not about any particular elephant. The subject of the article cannot be pointed to, weighed, or measured. Only particular elephants can be, but not elephantness.

LostOposum · 2012-05-20T23:32:20.507148+00:00

There is no structure because nominalism of universals is true, rather than realism. Aristotle's theory of universals is a form of realism. That means universals (or forms) are real "things" in addition to matter, space, time, and energy. Materialists want to say that such things do not exist, outside of our explanatory interests. Partially thanks to Occam.

xoxoyoyo · 2012-05-20T23:15:47.525932+00:00

One of the statements is that the theories that make fewer assumptions are more likely to be true. This is a ludicrous statement.

It's quite accurate, but the key thing that most people forget is that the two competing theories have to be almost equivalent in every other way. William Lycan explains:

I firmly agree that parsimony or simplicity is a reason for preferring one hypothesis to another. But it is a very posterior reason. That is, not only does it always carry the qualification “other things being equal,” but many, nearly all, other things must be equal before parsimony is called in to break the tie.

hammiesink

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login