digital audio
digital audio with http://www.mdnewscast.net

digital audio

Medical Newscast

News for 01-Apr-25

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
FDA OKs High-Tech Diabetes Device to Help Replace Fingerstick Tests

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
Sharp Drop in Blood Pressure After Rx May Be Risky for Some Heart Patients

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Health Tip: Creating an Insulin Routine

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Low Blood Sugar Linked to Death Risk for Hospital Patients

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
More Research Cites Salt's Potential Health Risks

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Can Protein, Probiotics Help With Blood Sugar Control?

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Daily Can of Soda Boosts Odds for Prediabetes, Study Finds

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Standing or 'Easy' Walks May Help Type 2 Diabetics Control Blood Sugar

Source: MedicineNet Diabetes General
Health Tip: Prepare for Travel With Diabetes

Source: MedicineNet High Blood Pressure General
High Blood Pressure Rates Have Doubled Worldwide Since 1975

Search the Web
digital audio
ham radio
live radio
web radio
radio online
audio covers
audio device
fun radio
radio city
xm radio

The Best digital audio website

All the digital audio information you need to know about is right here. Presented and researched by http://www.mdnewscast.net. We've searched the information super highway far and wide to provide you with the best digital audio site on the internet today. The links below will assist you in your efforts to find the information that you are looking for about
digital audio.

digital audio

Medical Newscast
For information about Medical Newscasts look no further. We have links to great resources regarding all forms of medical internet broadcasting.
Medical Newscast

Do the best digital audio numbers add up?


We assume that your interest in best digital audio has brought you to this site. We also assume that you are shopping for best digital audio online because you'll be able to buy product at a cheaper rate than via a Department Store. Your assumptions are correct so please closely examine the link below.

One way to determine if the numbers add up is to check the prices of best digital audio at your local store. Let's assume that you live in New Zealand and are accustomed to buying best digital audio locally. You may find that United States prices are quite amazing even after the normal currency conversions. You've now entered the world of International best digital audio E-Commerce.

Just a word of caution. Although the prices for best digital audio internationally may be better than say New Zealand you should also check out the freight and shipping charges. What's the point of getting cheap best digital audio prices which are then converted to very expensive best digital audio prices when the freight is added.

Do the numbers add up when freight is taken into account? Our research on many products, including best digital audio, has revealed that many suppliers are now offering best digital audio freight free. This will change the numbers in your favour.

The only way for you to fully determine the price elements on offer is to click on the links for the best digital audio merchants which are clearly shown on this page. Our links will take you straight to their website where you will be able to add up the numbers on their online best digital audio products with those in normal best digital audio shops. We definitely think the numbers will stack up in your favour.

digital audio

Medical Newscast
For information about Medical Newscasts look no further. We have links to great resources regarding all forms of medical internet broadcasting.
Medical Newscast

You may or may not be at the page that has everything you're looking for right now, because our digital audio site is too new to be the best in the field, or even in the top 10 websites. But the Internet sites that we link to above are the leaders of the pack. We know that they are the very best because we've done an awful lot of time consuming research over the past few months to come up with the very best digital audio resources available.

So what we suggest you do is leave our humble attempt at a digital audio site for one of our recommended choices. You'll find exactly the information and help about digital audio that you are seeking, and we'll have the satisfaction of helping you find what you are looking for.

lity As A Mental State

 by: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Moral values, rules, principles, and judgements are often thought of as beliefs or as true beliefs. Those who hold them to be true beliefs also annex to them a warrant or a justification (from the "real world"). Yet, it is far more reasonable to conceive of morality (ethics) as a state of mind, a mental state. It entails belief, but not necessarily true belief, or justification. As a mental state, morality cannot admit the "world" (right and wrong, evidence, goals, or results) into its logical formal definition. The world is never part of the definition of a mental state.

Another way of looking at it, though, is that morality cannot be defined in terms of goals and results - because these goals and results ARE morality itself. Such a definition would be tautological.

There is no guarantee that we know when we are in a certain mental state. Morality is no exception.

An analysis based on the schemata and arguments proposed by Timothy Williamson follows.

Moral Mental State - A Synopsis

Morality is the mental state that comprises a series of attitudes to propositions. There are four classes of moral propositions: "It is wrong to...", "It is right to...", (You should) do this...", "(You should) not do this...". The most common moral state of mind is: one adheres to p. Adhering to p has a non-trivial analysis in the more basic terms of (a component of) believing and (a component of) knowing, to be conceptually and metaphysically analysed later. Its conceptual status is questionable because we need to decompose it to obtain the necessary and sufficient conditions for its possession (Peacocke, 1992). It may be a complex (secondary) concept.

See here for a more detailed analysis.

Adhering to proposition p is not merely believing that p and knowing that p but also that something should be so, if and only if p (moral law).

Morality is not a factive attitude. One believes p to be true - but knows p to be contingently true (dependent on epoch, place, and culture). Since knowing is a factive attitude, the truth it relates to is the contingently true nature of moral propositions.

Morality relates objects to moral propositions and it is a mental state (for every p, having a moral mental relation to p is a mental state).

Adhering to p entails believing p (involves the mental state of belief). In other words, one cannot adhere without believing. Being in a moral mental state is both necessary and sufficient for adhering to p. Since no "truth" is involved - there is no non-mental component of adhering to p.

Adhering to p is a conjunction with each of the conjuncts (believing p and knowing p) a necessary condition - and the conjunction is necessary and sufficient for adhering to p.

One doesn't always know if one adheres to p. Many moral rules are generated "on the fly", as a reaction to circumstances and moral dilemmas. It is possible to adhere to p falsely (and behave differently when faced with the harsh test of reality). A sceptic would say that for any moral proposition p - one is in the position to know that one doesn't believe p. Admittedly, it is possible for a moral agent to adhere to p without being in the position to know that one adheres to p, as we illustrated above. One can also fail to adhere to p without knowing that one fails to adhere to p. As Williamson says "transparency (to be in the position to know one's mental state) is false". Naturally, one knows one's mental state better than one knows other people's. There is an observational asymmetry involved. We have non-observational (privileged) access to our mental state and observational access to other people's mental states. Thus, we can say that we know our morality non-observationally (directly) - while we are only able to observe other people's morality.

One believes moral propositions and knows moral propositions. Whether the belief itself is rational or not, is debatable. But the moral mental state strongly imitates rational belief (which relies on reasoning). In other words, the moral mental state masquerades as a factive attitude, though it is not. The confusion arises from the normative nature of knowing and being rational. Normative elements exist in belief attributions, too, but, for some reason, are considered "outside the realm of belief". Belief, for instance, entails the grasping of mental content, its rational processing and manipulation, defeasible reaction to new information.

We will not go here into the distinction offered by Williamson between "believing truly" (not a mental state, according to him) and "believing". Suffice it to say that adhering to p is a mental state, metaphysically speaking - and that "adheres to p" is a (complex or secondary) mental concept. The structure of adheres to p is such that the non-mental concepts are the content clause of the attitude ascription and, thus do not render the concept thus expressed non-mental: adheres to (right and wrong, evidence, goals, or results).

Williamson's Mental State Operator calculus is applied.

Origin is essential when we strive to fully understand the relations between adhering that p and other moral concepts (right, wrong, justified, etc.). To be in the moral state requires the adoption of specific paths, causes, and behaviour modes. Moral justification and moral judgement are such paths.

Knowing, Believing and their Conjunction

We said above that:

"Adhering to p is a conjunction with each of the conjuncts (believing p and knowing p) a necessary condition - and the conjunction is necessary and sufficient for adhering to p."

Williamson suggests that one believes p if and only if one has an attitude to proposition p indiscriminable from knowing p. Another idea is that to believe p is to treat p as if one knew p. Thus, knowing is central to believing though by no means does it account for the entire spectrum of belief (example: someone who chooses to believe in God even though he doesn't know if God exists). Knowledge does determine what is and is not appropriate to believe, though ("standard of appropriateness"). Evidence helps justify belief.

But knowing as a mental state is possible without having a concept of knowing. One can treat propositions in the same way one treats propositions that one knows - even if one lacks concept of knowing. It is possible (and practical) to rely on a proposition as a premise if one has a factive propositional attitude to it. In other words, to treat the proposition as though it is known and then to believe in it.

As Williamson says, "believing is a kind of a botched knowing". Knowledge is the aim of belief, its goal.

About The Author

Sam Vaknin is the author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" and the editor of mental health categories in The Open Directory, Suite101, and searcheurope.com.

His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com

Frequently asked questions regarding narcissism: http://samvak.tripod.com/faq1.html

Narcissistic Personality Disorder on Suite101: http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/npd

Google

http://www.medmeet.com/
MD News | Broadcast On the Net | MD Newscast | Xbox online games | Medical Newscast

Kids Meet   MD Meetings   Go Antiques