• Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    [Re AI etc. technologies] these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking you are constantly crusading against — wonderer1
    I'm also against --and even condemn-- physicalism as a single and absolute worldview, and esp. when it tries to get involved in and interpret things of a non physical nature. But I certainly cannot not appreciate, acknowledge and benefit from AI and thousands of other technologies, the existence of which is owed to Science and its "physicalist thinking".

    Physicality and non physicality can coexist in harmony.
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    ↪Wayfarer

    :up:
    I wish I could feel the same about the times we are living in ...

    (As far as AI is concerned, I'm in AI as a programmer since 2018 --5.5 years before ChatGPT went public-- so I saw it initially as just an impressive programming devolopment. Now I'm building my own chatbot, just a toy of course compared to ChatGPT, but still the principles and thinking behind both are the same. So, unfortunately I cannot be impressed by AI as most people on the planet are.)
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    Meanwhile the Sam Altman story keeps getting more far-out. — Wayfarer
    I had no idea about that story. I just got informed about it. Interesting story indeed.

    BTW, I read that Microsoft want both Altman and Brockman back to OpenAI. They say that they are more important than the BofD. I don't know about the truth of all that, neither the reason why Altman was dismissed. Neither why Brockman resigned from president. Well, your "Sam Altman story" is still running and we'll read new episodes soon. :smile:
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    The issue isn’t whether machines can read thought via detecting brain waves, but what kind of thinking is involved. — Joshs
    Right.

    Excellent description of how the brain works regarding thoughts/thinking and what possibilities exist for mind-reading. :up:
    (It fills gaps in my knowledge of the subject, which I never felt the need to fill in myself. :smile:)
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    ↪Wayfarer

    Wayfarer, I feel somwhat bad because in some way I run against your enthusiam regarding this indeed impressive video. Unfortunately, it happens that I know well a few things that make mind-reading impossible on a content basis. But certainly I cannot exclude that it can happen in one way or another in the future. It all depends on the means one is using. And there are a lot of alternative methods in achieving such a goal.

    As for Meta's technology and this video, I did a small research on the subject "Mind Reading using fMRI" (w/o quotes) restricting the period to "Last month" Meta's experiments appeared in only two articles in the first 60. (I didn't read their content.) And when I restricted the period to "Last week" --which just covers the date of the video, which was posted 1-2 days ago-- no such articles appeared. (You can verify that yourself.)
    Don't you find that a little strange?

    I really wish to be proved wrong and that Meta's or other technology to make my dream come true and your topic to be proved prophetic!
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    That’s what the youtube video is claiming. I’m not saying you have to believe it. — Wayfarer
    That's better!

    Incidentally the channel, Cold Fusion TV, produces generally pretty good quality mini-documentaries on a variety of tech and business products. — Wayfarer
    I don't doubt. But you also have to look at what a lot of other sources have to say on the subject. (Again, 396,000,000 Google results!)

    If some technology were even just close to being able to identify images from thoughts, such a thing would have revolutionized science --esp. psychiatry and psychology-- and the whole planet would have heard about it.
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    ↪Wayfarer


    From https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/brain-waves:
    ************************************************************************************************************
    Brain waves are oscillating electrical voltages in the brain measuring just a few millionths of a volt. There are five widely recognized brain waves, and the main frequencies of human EEG waves are listed in Table 2.1 along with their characteristics.

    Table 2.1. Characteristics of the Five Basic Brain Waves
    Frequency band  Frequency  Brain states
--------------  ---------  -----------------------------------------------------
Gamma (γ)          >35 Hz  Concentration
Beta  (β)        12–35 Hz  Anxiety dominant, active, external attention, relaxed
Alpha (α)         8–12 Hz  Very relaxed, passive attention
Theta (θ)          4–8 Hz  Deeply relaxed, inward focused
Delta (δ)        0.5–4 Hz  Sleep
    ************************************************************************************************************

    Do you still believe that brain waves can be used to detect the content of thoughts, like images?
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    ↪Wayfarer

    I didn't say that they use AI art-generators, neither that the fMRI gets text prompts, for godssake.
    I said that the produced images look like those produced by AI art-generators based on text prompts. Huge difference.

    But this is of secondary importance. You chose to stick on that instead of what I said it is of most importance.

    Well, whatever. Just keep believing that fMRI can read thoughts ...
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    There is a sequence about exactly that at around 12:14 with about 3-4 examples (cat, train, surfer, etc.) — Wayfarer
    Yes, I saw that. It is what AI art-generators do based on text prompts. This must be from DALL.E 3, one of the best ones. (I have not personally tried with it but I have seen samples.) And since this can be done from text, it must also be done from speech, using a speech-to-text converter. Indeed, at some point I saw a subject moving his mouth, like murmuring or something.
    Anyway, it is quite impressive as I said.
    BTW, I just googled < project thoughts on screen > and got ... 396,000,000 results. (Of course these numbers are never exact, but they are quite indicative of the popularity od a subject.) I read a couple of them and these kind of projects show only a possibility. As far as fMRI esp. is conceened, it is only a possibility in the future. So, let's see what the future has reserved for us ... :smile:

    I think the argument can be made that there is a physical aspect to them. What is not physical is insight, grasping the relations between ideas, and understanding meaning. — Wayfarer
    Well, they consist of energy and mass, but not of the kind we know in Physics. Yet, this energy and mass can be detected with special devices, e.g. polygraphs. (I have used such a device myself extensively. Not a polygraph.)
    This detection is possibe because thoughts affect the body, as I already said. And in this way, we can have indications about the kind of thoughts the subject has --from very "light" to quite "heavy", their regular or irregular flow, their abrupt changes, etc.-- but not of course of their content.
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    ↪Wayfarer

    Quite impressive as a technology. Yet, I would expect at least one example of how it really works. That is, a subject thinking of something --just an image, as the apple we've seen-- and the FMRI system recognizing and naming or reproducing that image. Well, I saw nothing of the sort.

    Transferring my thoughts to a machine and seeing them on a screen was always one of my wildest dreams. Reality though steps always in and stops me.

    Thoughts are not physical in nature. The brain only receives signals of how the person reacts to his thoughts, i.e. the effect these thoughts have on the body. (I could explain how this works, but not here of course.)
    The brain is only a stimulus-response mechanism. It receives and sends signals. That's all. Information may be stored in tissues or neurons, but always as signals. Now just imagine what a task would be to identify those signals among billions and name them, connect them as "words" and then "phrases" and so on. It would be as if we try to assemble millions of pixels in order to form an image we don't even know what it is about. And we would have to do that in a total darkness. It's not like in jigsaw puzzles, where we are given the image we are trying to solve and in plain light.
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪universeness

    Hi. Just by curiosity, would you have replied to this guy if you knew that he will ignore you, like everyone else? I wouldn't. That's why I deleted my original reply and replace it with another, a personal one, expressing my utter reproval.

    I believe that everyone should do the same so that this OP remains w/o replies.
  • How to define stupidity?
    ↪Matias

    Do you know how do Discussions here normally work?

    If you launch a discussion, you are supposed to respond to the replies you receive on your topic, esp. when you ask for their opinion.

    In general, you are supposed to respond to messages addressed to you.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_JqXsZGIjWDa-rlYMGJ51bh5RqmNNeP-ZAg&usqp=CAU
  • How to define stupidity?
    (I deleted my reply to this topic because the OP doesn't deserve it.)
  • Help Me
    I want to start from scratch and understand the first principles of philosophy so that I fight different theories while on solid ground. — T4YLOR
    Instead of actually starting from scratch ... Every time you read a work or watch a video or listen to a talk or speech with philosophical content, think as if you are starting from scratch, in the sense of emptying your mind from any fixed ideas and beliefs, and ask yourself if that content makes sense to you, if you have experiences in your life that can be explained or agree with it, and if you can apply to your life the ideas that are conveyed by it. Because, if none of these is true, that content will be useless to you, however important, well-known and/or famous their source is (considered to be).

    If you understand well an idea and it works --it is real-- for you, you can adopt it as yours, independently of where it comes from. The source of that idea wanted to share it with you. You only have to acknowledge that. It will be added to your own world of reality together will the ideas that you yourself conceive.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    I do respect the opinions of others Alkis, especially honest interlocutors like yourself, but to offer you diluted opinions, for fear of making you feel that an opinion you hold, is being disrespected, would diminish my ability to try to show that I am also an honest interlocutor. — universeness
    Right. I'm aware of that and that's why I mentioned it. What I didn't mention, is that I also believe you have an open mind and you are willing to see other people's views.

    And thank you for your kind words.
  • Beliefs, facts and reality.
    ↪Benj96


    Fact: That which actually exists or existed or happens or has happened. Something that is known to exist or to have happened.

    Dogma: An official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. A specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church.

    As for "scientific dogma", it's a frail term, used either in a figurative way or prone to dissolve into thin air at first scrutiny, if used in a literaly sense. It is connected to scientism, which is sinIe-minded adherence to only testable and provable facts and events, and it is as stong as dogma in religion.
    For me, "scientific dogma" is whatever scientists believe that it can be explained by Science, although it has be only partly or selectively proved or it has never or not yet been proved in a definite and/or indisputable way. It is the result of scientific materialism, which makes science look like a religion.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    Some lives have been more significant perhaps, than others, when it comes to legacy. That is of course an individual judgment call (which is where memorialisation can be most useful). This is what legacy means to me. — universeness
    I see. OK.
    Certainly, some individuals have been more significant than others on specific areas.
    And indeed it matters --I give you credit for bringing up this subject-- because if these persons didn't make a difference and/or important contributions to society and the humanity, and didn't leave their important legacy to us, civilizations as we know them would not even existed. No science, no techology, no art ...
    But it's not only important persons who leave a legacy. Everyone does. Everyone leave traces behind him as they walk on the path of their life. They can be little or very important for the lives of others. How many times haven't you remembered wise words from your father or other close relative meny years after they passed by? These words, can make a difference for you and others, if passed to them too.
    I still remember wise words of an old poor man that I knew in my youth and still have an effect on me. This man, as millions or others, could not write books to transmit their wisdom to people. But words from mouth to mouth can have a similar effect as a book.

    If legacy has no meaning to an individual human then, I personally can do no more and no less, than feel pity for such people.. Do you think such a 'pity' response is unwarranted or disrespectful? — universeness
    Well, maybe. I personally wouldn't feel 'pity', or anything else for that matter.

    That does not answer my 'yes' or 'no' question. Answering yes or no is quite possible as an overall judgment call, regardless of the nuances you wish to also consider. — universeness
    Sorry about that.

    you have employed two words/concepts in that sentence that currently, have zero demonstrable, objective evidence of any existent, that has such properties. — universeness
    I find this somewhat disrespectful. However, I can let it be because I believe that you don't really mean it. I know that you respect other peoples' opinion and that you just reacted, as most people in here would. (BTW, these words/concepts mean a lot to a lot--if not most-- people on the planet.)
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    What value do you place on the notion of personal legacy Alkis? — universeness
    If you mean if and how people are going to remember me, none.

    Do you think your life was well spent if it was spent, mostly helping others maintain, feel secure and feel valued and perhaps even progress, in their own life? — universeness
    I help people when and if I can and I'm happy in doing that.
    Helping is a basic need in life. We see that not only in humans but in animals too. But, although in animals it is always done in a natural, instictive way, with humans it's very different. It can have a lot of faces and motives, other than being a genuine, natural and sincere action.

    Live life as a wonder and not as a curse. — universeness
    I live life as an eternal spiritual being.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    You will also avoid future joy and the positive difference you could potentially make in the lives of others. — universeness
    I think @rossii has a point here. Just look at it from a totally rational point of view, i.e., with no emotions, negative or positive whatsoever. Also assume that there is no afterlife, that is no consiousness, no knowledge, no memories, no emotions continue to "exist" or "survive" after death.

    You say "You will also avoid future joy". Certainly. But what is the value of it if you won't take that joy with you after you die? Suppose that you die happy and in a great wellness. So what? Wouldn't that be lost together wih everything else? The only good thing in that case is that you avoid suffering. mental and/or physical, your last moments of your life. Yet, even if this wouldn't happen, suffering would end exactly as pleasure.

    As for the "positive difference you could potentially make in the lives of others", it is alsmost the same thing, only that it applies to others instead of yourself. With the exception that they they wouldn't think the way I described above.

    Now, there's a counter --or parallel-- logic that comes in: if it makes no difference if you live or die, why kill yourself and die sooner than the furure unavoidable, fatal conditions take place? And this, I believe, is a much "healthier" view.

    I'm certainly not an antinatalist nor a suicidal case. I enioy life but I'm ready to die at any moment. I only wish to die peacefully or instantly.
  • Beliefs, facts and reality.
    Facts and beliefs don't really differ much. Both are constructions which serve to rationalise observations/experience of reality. Both are never fully 100% certain. Both often have large dogmas connected to them and groups defined by whether they pursue one dogma or another. — Benj96
    Facts "have large dogmas connected to them"?
    Come on now, Benj.
  • Why is alcohol so deeply rooted in our society?
    ↪wonderer1

    :up: :grin:
  • Why is alcohol so deeply rooted in our society?
    ↪Skalidris

    What society in particular are you referring to?
    Alcohol is used in all the societies of the world. From primitive to most civilized.

    People drink for various reasons. From simple pleasure to getting rid of persistent hurtful memories and to having mental problems (not illness, necessarily). And the amount and frequency of drinking also varies from occasionally to daily to heavy addiction (alcoholism).

    As for "denial", it is certainly not the main reason --if it is a reason at all-- for drinking. People who deny reality are usually people with mental problems (not mentally ill), frail and emotional people, who are instable, they cannot control their mind and emotions, and who can easily change from joy to anger (not manic-depressive, this is a heavy condition). And these people usually drink very little. They have other means to get rid of unpleasant and negative thoughts that pull them down: mainly by suppressing them. Avoid to accept, denying what they know well it is real, mainly by covering them with other, positive thoughts. That's why these people are characterized by lying: they are modifying and negating reality, truth. And all that, on a constant basis. It's pathological.
  • Web development in 2023
    ↪Michael

    What I undestood is what https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/single-page-application-SPA says, which is not what you are saying.
    Anyway, thanks.
  • Web development in 2023
    If you mean the ones that load everything up-front, rather than those that use code splitting, I’m not sure. — Jamal
    Yes, I meant that. Of course it might difficult to tell. But each now and then I see huge "home" pages --where the word "home" has lost its meaning-- or some huge single-page sections of the site. And I'm wondering why? Why should one have to scroll for hours in order to find an information? Even if you try to use "Search in page", it doesn't help because the single page grows dynamically as you scroll down. (But at least this is done dynamically.) Quora has a lot of such sections and one has to bear that awful system. The more logical and also "human" way is to split pages abd have an\ numbered index of links for jumping to a certain page no. Exactly how it is done in TPF (topics, comments, mentions, etc.).
  • Web development in 2023
    Often, all the necessary HTML, JavaScript, and stuff are downloaded once, when you log in. — Jamal
    Is this maybe the reason why some sites are quite slow in loading? I guess they must be the ones with a huge content. Do you know any of them --that use this method-- so I can check if this is true?

    I Just read about SPAs and they say that they can also load resources dynamically, according to the interaction with the user. This makes much more sense, doesn't it? I do that in my programs in Python. I don't import everything at start but according to if and when a certain module or group of modules are needed. Why loading everyhting at start if some of them are not to be used, esp. the time-consuming ones? I consider that inefficient programming.

    But because of the high speeds, large amounts of RAM and the huge storage spaces available, a lot of the once respected rules of effective and efficient programming are being violated since a few decades ago.

    You might have understood that I am an old-timer ... Right. My passion for programming has started even before PCs were born! And I like to still respect those rules. I feel very lucky that I started so early. I had the opportunity to develop a strong ability in problem solving. Not only in programming, but in other areas too. Because what else is programming than problem solving? :smile:
  • Artificial intelligence
    ↪Gregory

    You make no sense, man.
  • Artificial intelligence
    I didn't say i knew anything about the topic. — Gregory
    No, you didn't have to. It showed by itself. And yet, you have launched a discussion about it. So, my question was, how comes you didn't at least try to learn something about it. That's all.
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    ↪universeness

    :pray:
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    [Re "terror" and "horror"] they are more like variations on the theme of human fear, rather than opposites. — universeness
    :up:
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    It would be such a big step forward in the human psyche imo, if we stopped presenting these historical butchers as anything other than that. — universeness
    It would be indeed. And I find it, like you, totally unacceptable. Only that all this has been written with permanent ink both in the records of history and the minds of people. And of course, they are in all (?) the curriculi in schools. But what can be done at least is for the History teachers to also talk about the "other side" of the stories. I know that this is done in colleges, but it's too late. (I was lucky to have such a teacher in college. It was the first time I liked History!)

    The day that a majority of human beings grasp that, will be a very good day for the progression of our species imo. — universeness
    It will certainly be. Personally, it took me years to realize that Alexander was actually and insane, I mean pathologically. And consider that I used to think critically since my youth. The only thing was that Historey wa never my cup of coffee; it was never in my menu of the day.

    Yet you offered a great start for us all, imo. — universeness
    Thanks for your kind words. I wish I really did, though! :smile:

    A full reassessment of what we value most from the history and events of our species. Such a move in the education of all future generations everywhere, would cause such change in the human psyche for the better, imo. — universeness
    That would be great, indeed.

    We can change, we are a very adaptable species. It does not matter how deep the rot goes, we have a great deal of healthy flesh as well! We can slowly and surgically remove the rot. It may take a long long time for our flesh to heal but it will heal. — universeness
    I really admire you for your passion and your ideals, universeness. I have seen this vein of yours in other exchanges too.)
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    Yeah but don't forget to also accuse such as the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, the old KGB and many others, including groups like the KKK, the proud boys, neo-nazi groups and nefarious rich elites. — universeness
    Of course. There so many of them ... Criminality, and the insanity that accompanies it, can take all forms and faces. And in mind come only the notorious and most discussed cases. There are other, more "silent" cases, that have been glorified in history, and yet they were insane and responsible for a lot of killings. All conquerors in history fall into this category: Gengis Kahn, Alexander the Great, Ceasar, Attila, ... We take the side of the conqueror and winner and we ignore and forget about the opposite side, the victims on the bodies of whom these conquerors have stepped on, the violence used, rapes by the men under their command, and so on, and on a mass scale.

    Do you believe hope is all we have? Can hard work, focused intent, a united common cause to live better ... — universeness
    I'm not a pessimist by nature, but I can't hide what my reason says and the bad news that sometimes follow it. To your question about hope, I will bring in history, whuch has not shown such a tendency in the long run. There are of course periods of peace and prosperity after big wars, as there is calm and freshness after a storm. But in the long run we see resurges of mass violence in the form of war, as the relatively recent Ukraine war about year and half ago, an escalation od the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014. And we have of course, even more recently, the Israeli–Palestinian confict, with about 7,000 dead Palestinians and 1,500 Israelis unti now, and counting.
    So, no, I can't see any signs that would make us change so radically as to reverse the course of history.
    It has been said, and justifiably so, that if a common enemy to and threat for the whole humanity appeared suddenly, then people would forget about the conflicts between each other unite in order tio fight the enemy or just be protected from it. Covid-19 is a good example of that. It made people more cooperative, amicable and helpful between each other and there has been "a reduction in many types of crime around the world" as Wikipedia says.

    ***

    Something else now. As the discussion has been progressing, and after both of us having used the word "horific" a few times, I realized that indeed horror is felt while something is happening and after it has happened, whereas terror is felt in anticipation, as you said, of something that is about to happen or may happen. So, we can say that they differ sequentially or time-wise, in the sense of "before" (terror) and "during" or "after" (horror).
    (But still they cannot be considered "opposite".)
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    [Re: Are psychopaths and insane not being responsible for their actions?]Only partially imo, I think the main responsibility lies with those in authority, who CHOOSE to nurture and augment such pathology, ... — universeness
    Of course, these are responsible. Whoever incites people to violent actions is the main responsible for the results of these actions.
    Hamas, Isis, Jihad, etc. are all terrorist organizations that spread horror in the world.

    do you not think we have learned to alter our behaviours from those that were ruled mainly by pure instinctive and often bestial responses. — universeness
    Yes and no. Yes, our behavior is not so animalistic as in the Stone Age. And no, our behavior is governed lagely by our subconcious mind and our conditioning (in both a Pavlovian, physiological way and in a mental way, as repeated patterns of thinking, biases, beliefs, etc.) Religious fanatism, for instance, is one of the extreme cases. Wars are still crated based simply on relifgious beliefs.
    So, we have just changed the our animalistic behavior to an irrational one. The consequences remain more or less the same. (Let's hope that they don't get worse!)
  • Artificial intelligence
    ↪Gregory

    I'm sorry to say this, but you don't seem to know anything about your subject.

    What do you mean "AI are in the news again"? What does "are" stand for? Again, as supposed to when?
    And then, what are "these machines"? And what makes you think that they can "someday have the reasoning we have"?
    And then, "does this mean they are conscious?" How can a machine be conscious, when consciousness is an attribute of only living things?

    I believe that, as a minimum requirement, you should learn about your subject, at least look it up in dictionary or encyclopedia, before launching a discussion about it. Otherwise, you lay yourself open to ridicule. (As it happens here. And again, I'm really sorry to have to say all that.)
  • Poll: Evolution of consciousness by natural selection
    ↪petrichor

    In the first definition, you say about consciousness that it is "not merely a behavioral disposition".
    In the second definition, you say about consciousness that "it doesn't influence behavior".
    Aren't these two in conflict?

    Now, behavior is --among other things-- the response or combination of responses to internal and external stimuli.
    Aren't these stimuli perceived by me when and because I am conscious? Isn't therefore my behavior in this case based and shaped by my consciousness? And isn't the statement that consciousness "doesn't influence behavior" wrong?

    Consciousness is essentially a state and ability to perceive internal and external stimuli. And behavior is a response to these stimuli.
    But because these stimuli also include thoughts and other internal stimuli, behavior is also affected by the subconscious, in a more or less automatic way, i.e., by elements that usually we are not aware (conscious) of. In short, our behavior is affected by both the conscious and the subconscious parts of the our mind.

    It seems that now all the discrepancies and conflicts I described above are resolved. Doesn't it?

    In defining concepts, it is always best to think of what they are and mean essentially.

    All causes are physical. A full explanation of behavior can be given by a purely physical, third-person description of the objective situation without any appeal to subjective experience. — petrichor
    Isn't thinking, reasoning and other purely mental faculties, which are non-physical in nature, also causes? Don't they also affect behavior?
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    ↪javi2541997

    :up:
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    Thats way too far for me. — universeness
    You are right. "The horror of life itself" was badly expressed. I meant "The horror in life", horror as part of life.

    As for the horror created by natural causes and horror created by man, they are both part of life, aren't they? Sometimes, we cannot even tell one from the other. Only when there is intention behind the cause, i.e. deliberate action, we can say that man is responsible for it. Even then, can we render psychopaths and insane people, who cannot tell right from wrong, who can act as animals, responsible for their actions? And wars, haven't they existed since the dawn of Man? Doesn't all that make them part of our nature?
    So, whatever is the cause of horror, it is part of life.
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo. — universeness
    Certainly. Unfortunately, military people have invented the term and concept of "collateral damage" to lessen and justify that effect of such criminal actions. You see, it benifits all parts. It also soothes the pain from the loss, esp. of those who lose their own people. And what is even worst, this term has found its way and is used in non-military context as well.

    Too many prefer to ignore all of that and just 'enjoy their life,' as best they can! — universeness
    I believe there are a lot of people who indeed ignore all that, as well as a lot who even enjoy it (terrorists, criminals, insane, psychopaths), but not the great majority of the people. Those may see to ignore what is happening and just continue to enjoy their life as you say, but it is not actually true. They are all sad about it, only they can't do anything about it and accept life as it is.
    See, it's not only the horror of the war. It's the horror also of criminality, the horror of sickness, the horror and of ugly accidents, tho horror of catastrophes, individual and massive ones ...
    It's the horror of life itself.
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    It is important to have a look at Kazantzakis's works because he discovers the religious prophets in a more realistic way: humanisation, rather than the metaphors we used to read in the Gospels... — javi2541997
    :up:
    This is very true and it is also very important for people to see.
    I also believe that you have got totally into Kazantzaki's spirit. Myself, I have forgotten about this so characteristic Kazantzakian element. Thanks for reminding me of it.
  • Theory of mind, horror and terror.
    Well, perhaps the physical mechanisms involved from a neuroscience angle, are very important to fully understand. — universeness
    Well, I will disappoint you here. Neuroscience deals with the brain. It has nothing to do with the mind. :smile: (Just that. Don't expect from me to elaborate.)

    I don't know much about the details involved, other than a basic appreciation of the fight or flight instinct. — universeness
    Yes, this is what is also called "instinct of survival". Theres no muuch to know about i as a mechanism, since it is automatic; like reflexes. However, its force and magnitude, as well as the reactions that follow it can vary a lot, depending on various factors.

    Is our natural reaction to horror and terror beyond our ability to fully command and control? — universeness
    Do all people react in the same way in horror movies or the view of cruel crimes, war scenes, ugly accidents, etc.?
    People react differently even in the simple sight of blood.
    And of course we can control it. Imagine a surgeon who cannot tolerate the sight of blood! :grin:
  • Are you against the formation of a techno-optimistic religion?
    I think some believers profess their cult to just get redemption before they die. When they think their sins are forgiven, they can be accepted in heaven. Speaking in a general overview, I guess this is what they understand as freedom. — javi2541997
    Yes, this is one of the many kinds of "freedom to" that one can feel. In this Christian frame of reference, sins are "obstacles" in going to heaven after death. So, people try get absolved, i.e. free of them, usually with confession and repetance. But it is also a "freedom from". Because doing that, one gets rid of guilt, they get free from their guilty conscience, from things that bother them and act as "obstacles" in achieving a calm mind.
    Do you agree?

    Of course, I have another sense of freedom! But I want to respect their faith. — javi2541997
    Nice. A "healthy" behaviour and thinking!

    And I this is maybe an ideal moment to remind us of Kazantzakis' famous quote: "I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."
Home » Alkis Piskas