<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Philosophy Compass</title>
	<atom:link href="http://philosophy-compass.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://philosophy-compass.com</link>
	<description>Peer-reviewed survey articles from across the discipline</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 19:27:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New Editor-in-Chief for Philosophy Compass by Jeff</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2012/02/24/new-editor-in-chief-for-philosophy-compass/#comment-2523</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 19:27:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=5420#comment-2523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although I&#039;m not involved in Philosophy Compass day-to-day, I had the honor of first approaching Brian about being its editor, and I&#039;m so glad he agreed to take on the role.  Philosophy Compass was something of an experiment, and I have been pleased to see it grow over the years, meeting (and in many ways exceeding) expectations.  I am a bit late to this posting, but wanted to leave a public &quot;thank you&quot; to Brian, and a &quot;welcome&quot; to Elizabeth.  Cheers to you both!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although I&#8217;m not involved in Philosophy Compass day-to-day, I had the honor of first approaching Brian about being its editor, and I&#8217;m so glad he agreed to take on the role.  Philosophy Compass was something of an experiment, and I have been pleased to see it grow over the years, meeting (and in many ways exceeding) expectations.  I am a bit late to this posting, but wanted to leave a public &#8220;thank you&#8221; to Brian, and a &#8220;welcome&#8221; to Elizabeth.  Cheers to you both!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Tradition and Politics by robert landbeck</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2012/02/05/tradition-and-politics/#comment-2486</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[robert landbeck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=5378#comment-2486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Happiness is not an objective moral standard of itself, but there is an objective moral standard which is more than capable of both defining and delivering happiness, but it&#039;s not to be found in tradition. But in what science, religion, philosophy and tradition all thought impossible but has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith. 

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called &#039;the first Resurrection&#039; in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods&#039; willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence. Ultimate proof!

Thus &#039;faith&#039; become trust in action, to search and discover this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our human moral compass with the Divine,  &quot;correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.&quot; So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk, 
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Happiness is not an objective moral standard of itself, but there is an objective moral standard which is more than capable of both defining and delivering happiness, but it&#8217;s not to be found in tradition. But in what science, religion, philosophy and tradition all thought impossible but has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith. </p>
<p>The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called &#8216;the first Resurrection&#8217; in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods&#8217; willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence. Ultimate proof!</p>
<p>Thus &#8216;faith&#8217; become trust in action, to search and discover this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our human moral compass with the Divine,  &#8220;correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries.&#8221; So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at <a href="http://www.energon.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.energon.org.uk</a>,<br />
<a href="http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/" rel="nofollow">http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Can Science Explain Existence? by Pachomius</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2010/05/28/can-science-explain-existence/#comment-2470</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pachomius]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophycompass.wordpress.com/?p=2494#comment-2470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Our universe is made up of anti-matter as well as matter and when the two collide, they annihilate.  Thus, scientists have long wondered how so much matter could have escaped annihilation to go on to create the galaxies, stars, and planets we see today.   The conditional question is: why, given that the universe started off with high energy particles that decayed into anti-matter as well as matter, is there (still) anything at all?  Why didn’t everything annihilate, leaving only empty space?

This different question was answered, in part, by a novel experiment that was able to probe the difference in production of matter and anti-matter from B-mesons.  The team, made up of over 500 scientists, concluded that for every 100 anti-muon pairs created, there are 101 muon pairs created.  Thus, over a long period of time, there is a gradual accumulation of matter over anti-matter in these interactions.  This result is much higher than predicted and could be a crucial part of the answer to why there is something (left after the early universe) rather than nothing.&quot;


In other words, the experiment proves that matter and anti-matter cannot annihilate themselves so that material existence disappears totally into nothingness in terms of existence.

Can man with any scientific technology he can master in the future annihilate matter altogether so that material existence becomes absolute nothing in terms of existence?

I submit, no, because that is beyond the power of created beings to achieve, and the reason is founded on common sense, namely: you cannot annihilate something you did not create in the first place, and also any material existence that has a beginning cannot self-annihilate.

The conclusion is that there is God creator of everything with a beginning, specially everything which science is concerned with, namely, of material existence.


Pachomius]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Our universe is made up of anti-matter as well as matter and when the two collide, they annihilate.  Thus, scientists have long wondered how so much matter could have escaped annihilation to go on to create the galaxies, stars, and planets we see today.   The conditional question is: why, given that the universe started off with high energy particles that decayed into anti-matter as well as matter, is there (still) anything at all?  Why didn’t everything annihilate, leaving only empty space?</p>
<p>This different question was answered, in part, by a novel experiment that was able to probe the difference in production of matter and anti-matter from B-mesons.  The team, made up of over 500 scientists, concluded that for every 100 anti-muon pairs created, there are 101 muon pairs created.  Thus, over a long period of time, there is a gradual accumulation of matter over anti-matter in these interactions.  This result is much higher than predicted and could be a crucial part of the answer to why there is something (left after the early universe) rather than nothing.&#8221;</p>
<p>In other words, the experiment proves that matter and anti-matter cannot annihilate themselves so that material existence disappears totally into nothingness in terms of existence.</p>
<p>Can man with any scientific technology he can master in the future annihilate matter altogether so that material existence becomes absolute nothing in terms of existence?</p>
<p>I submit, no, because that is beyond the power of created beings to achieve, and the reason is founded on common sense, namely: you cannot annihilate something you did not create in the first place, and also any material existence that has a beginning cannot self-annihilate.</p>
<p>The conclusion is that there is God creator of everything with a beginning, specially everything which science is concerned with, namely, of material existence.</p>
<p>Pachomius</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8220;Brave New World&#8221; by what is physics</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2010/03/30/brave-new-world/#comment-2445</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[what is physics]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:02:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophycompass.wordpress.com/?p=2017#comment-2445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;what is physics...&lt;/strong&gt;

[...]&#8220;Brave New World&#8221; &#171; Philosophy Compass[...]...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>what is physics&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>[...]&#8220;Brave New World&#8221; &laquo; Philosophy Compass[...]&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Interview: Science Fiction and Philosophy &#8211; From Time Travel to Superintelligence by David Roberts</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2010/06/29/science-fiction-and-philosophy/#comment-2438</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Roberts]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophycompass.wordpress.com/?p=2692#comment-2438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A little networking here if allowed.  For a look at mind body problem trough sci-fi Cartesian eyes, see introductiontophilosophy.com --a free online book.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A little networking here if allowed.  For a look at mind body problem trough sci-fi Cartesian eyes, see introductiontophilosophy.com &#8211;a free online book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What if Mars Attacks? by phenomena</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2011/01/13/what-if-mars-attacks/#comment-2433</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[phenomena]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=3852#comment-2433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;phenomena...&lt;/strong&gt;

[...]What if Mars Attacks? &#171; Philosophy Compass[...]...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>phenomena&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>[...]What if Mars Attacks? &laquo; Philosophy Compass[...]&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Interview: The Art of Comics: A Philosophical Approach by Filozofia i komiks :: zbiór esejów &#171; Komiks w bibliotece</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2012/01/24/interview-the-art-of-comics/#comment-2367</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Filozofia i komiks :: zbiór esejów &#171; Komiks w bibliotece]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=5350#comment-2367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] stronie Amazona można zapoznać się ze wstępem wydania na Kindle, zaś na blogu The Philosopher&#8217;s Eye  znajdziemy wywiad z redaktorami tomu. Share [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] stronie Amazona można zapoznać się ze wstępem wydania na Kindle, zaś na blogu The Philosopher&#8217;s Eye  znajdziemy wywiad z redaktorami tomu. Share [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What If There Are No Innate Rules? by The Evolution of Translation Memory</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2011/05/02/what-if-there-are-no-innate-rules/#comment-2366</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Evolution of Translation Memory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=4592#comment-2366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] denied that a machine (or anything composed of physical matter) could ever realise human language. Descartes considered it physically impossible that a physical structure could ever be capable of the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] denied that a machine (or anything composed of physical matter) could ever realise human language. Descartes considered it physically impossible that a physical structure could ever be capable of the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New Naturalistic Philosophy Editor for Philosophy Compass by Ben</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2012/03/15/new-naturalistic-philosophy-editor-for-philosophy-compass/#comment-2361</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=5457#comment-2361</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It`s strange to me that the atheists like R.Dawkins try to use the evolution as the prove of god`s non existance because this is the question that science just begin to study.The idea of god-the creator of the universe is not so obvious and late one.As the scientist I see the world obeying the physical laws so complicated and inhuman that the possible creation of it have other inhuman goals.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It`s strange to me that the atheists like R.Dawkins try to use the evolution as the prove of god`s non existance because this is the question that science just begin to study.The idea of god-the creator of the universe is not so obvious and late one.As the scientist I see the world obeying the physical laws so complicated and inhuman that the possible creation of it have other inhuman goals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Atheist&#8217;s Guide to Reality by Ben</title>
		<link>http://philosophy-compass.com/2012/03/12/the-atheists-guide-to-reality/#comment-2360</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philosophy-compass.com/?p=5439#comment-2360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Liberating ourselves from gnoseology-the questions of the Universe creation and so on-leaving this to science-we can sink into existantialism of any kind.All religions do it today. And more: the world appeared so complicated that even scientists have to believe in some things because they cant prove them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liberating ourselves from gnoseology-the questions of the Universe creation and so on-leaving this to science-we can sink into existantialism of any kind.All religions do it today. And more: the world appeared so complicated that even scientists have to believe in some things because they cant prove them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
