Especially the second one is "nice"!

The reason for living? Ooof! In any case not to pass on genes or memes, like modern science says (embodied by people as R. Dawkins, who see people as a vessel for selfish genes........???). I think life itself is the reason. What's life itself? Magic! — Prishon

Life for life's sake; all else (philosophy, love, honor, beauty, etc.) is an illusion! We've seen through the ruse, eh? We've seen life in its real form and while some may exclaim, "it sin't pretty!", I quite like cheating and copying is, I believe, the easiest way to do that (brain unnecessary!) :lol:

That said, now what?

Why do you think that thats the reason we live?. Sounds circular. Copy me? :smile: — Prishon

What do you think is the reason why we live?

mirrors can be a source of joy and horror. — Jack Cummins

How can you know yourself? — Prishon

I wish I knew that. I always had a problem with the advice to know thyself (temet nosce). There are two way of doing that:

1. Self-reflection but then the biases that you have will play havoc with the image of yourself i.e. distorted self-image. Remediable though with the help of knowledge about biases that afflict us but then the specter of bias looms ever as threateningly over this neat move: after all, how do we're not biased about what we think are cognitive biases

2. Reflection off of others but then other people could be as or, if you're unlucky, more biased than you; again, a distorted self-image results.

Do you see another way out of this rather disturbing and lamentable situation? We must know ourselves but there really is no way of doing that in a way that could be deemed satisfactory.

Who are you? — Prishon

As I suppose @180 Proof would reply,

who am i? same as Odysseus (homo viator) told the cyclops, "Nobody" ...

Therefore, Yajnavalkya says to Maitreyi, “Nobody loves anything for its own sake.” All love is love of the Self, in the pure spiritual sense. Not this self or that self, myself or yourself, itself - this kind of self is not the point. It is the universal Self that is actually pulling you in some form, and you are not able to catch the point. There is an illusion that is presented to the sense organs, and under the impression — Brihadaranyaka

You were right Smith, you were always right. — Mr. Anderson

Life's raison d'être is to copy itself; there's no statement stronger than "copy ME" to express self-love. Nothing is then more important than ME and to ensure my existence I want to copy myself!

But isn't being conscious in itself the awareness of consciousness? — Hermeticus

Here, I'll have to disagree with you. I will say nothing more than that though.

interconnected — Jack Cummins

other minds. — Jack Cummins

I don't know where you want to take this but there are solitary animals that only socialize to mate and once ejaculation is achieved, it's as if they never met. Such animals, loners you could call them, don't actually require other minds to be given an opportunity to become self-aware, for instance, they could see their own reflection in the water while they drink.

Before I forget, this reminds me of the myth of Narcissus. The question: was Narcissus really/completely self-aware? More to the point, was Narcissus not self-aware? :chin:

I DO pay attention. My inner space has been probed by your comment... I can refine the probe (Im not sure if you mean a physical probe; but I dont assume) by refining my questions over and over again, like I can refine my questions to external Nature. The latter can involve sophisticated experimental set-ups. That can also be the case for exploring the internal Nature. Or in exploring you, being the one between the internal world and the outside one — Prishon

:ok:

You could do this. The probe being questions. — Prishon

Yes, one way would be that but I was gunning for something a little bit more sophisticated than sitting somebody down and asking fae to answer a barrage of questions. You know, the mind probe has to be a rather complex but not necessarily a complicated thing, it should have on board the latest "equipment" available in the fields of consciousness, memory, psychology. My wild ideas. Pay no attention!

Such a probe would have to be masterfully crafted, concise and elaborate, and very telling. It would be the opposite of a legacy, given that it goes back in time rather than forward or maybe I have misunderstood the task. I have no idea what I would offer in all honesty. Which is a severely lacking response, but I don’t know how to confirm such a gesture — Dante

It's just an idea - there are, all said and done, two mutually overlapping words, the physical and the mental, and the many approaches to the former we seem so confident about could be useful to say the least in the latter. There are many scientists and technicians involved in the construction of space probes which are intended to physically visit distant worlds (planets/stars/galaxies) and relay their findings back to earth. I see no reason at all why we can't construct a mind probe (an old idea but, till date, only employed for nefarious objectives) that can travel in mind space and either return with information or somehow "broadcast" it back. The most interesting thing about the mindspace, germane to this our discussion, is that it doesn't seem to be temporally restricted/constrained - memory (past) & imagination (future).

I often denote this sequence of non existence, life and then non existence as 010. — Dante

Indeed, from that angle, before one is born (pre-life) is indistinguishable from after one is dead (post-life). The lack of any means of making a distinction between things resonates with me; it's been the leitmotif of many of my posts if you want to know.

But what if non existence one has life before it? — Dante

There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence to suggest that but, to be fair, it can't be ruled out in a way, to a degree of certainty that would clear all doubts. We're treading, it seems, at the very limits of what humans, all taken together, claim they know. I wish we could send a probe like those used in space exploration back into our past, to a time before we were born, to, well, find out. What in your opinion would such a proble look like? It has to be mental, it must be retrievable, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all she wrote.

I maintain that the state before life and after one’s life meet the same requirement of being an absence of oneself. — Dante

That's what the OP seems to sayiing.
:point: Nonexistence 1--->Life--->Nonexistence 2(Death).

Almost all studies on nonexistence with regard to life has been, is, will probably be about Nonexistence 2 (Death). Very few people seem interested in Nonexistence 1 and one among them is Lucretius (De rereum natura). He writes,

Look back now and consider how the bygone ages of eternity that elapsed before our birth were nothing to us. Here, then, is a mirror in which nature shows us the time to come after our death. Do you see anything fearful in it? — Lucretius

I must extend my gratitude to the OP @Dante for helping me to see the light as it were - it's time we shifted our focus from Nonexistence 1 (Death) to Nonexistence 1 (before life). Of course, all this assuming either that someone else hasn't already done so but failed or it's an easier problem to deal with than Nonexistence 2 (Death).

non-existence and death — Dante

Nonexistence and death, to my reckoning, aren't the same because the former doesn't require a period of time when there's life but the latter does. Yes, death is a state of nonexistence and hence I referred to it as such (Nonexistence 2) but the "2" there is to emphasize the fact that there was life that preceded it.

They're in dreamless sleep indefinitely, unaware even of their own existence. — Hermeticus

Zen moment for me! Please give me some time process this magnificent observation!

Premise One: Death is not simply the process of living and then dying but is perhaps more accurately identified as the absence of one’s consciousness.

Premise Two: All forms of conscious life begin initially with an absence of itself, an absence of its consciousness. Via birth this condition is transformed and the consciousness is developed and woken to reality.

Premise Three: Upon dying the individual’s consciousness returns to an absence of itself and ceases to exist.

Inference: Life proceeds death because death precedes life. — Dante

Non sequitur.

You haven't proven this :point: life proceeds death, nor does this :point: death precedes life, make any sense.

How can death precede life when death is defined as the end of life (cessation of physical and mental functions)? Isn't that like saying a fire was extinguished before it was even lit. Something's off. I reckon you're confusing nonexistence with death; apparently they aren't the same thing. To drive the point home, do you say a stone is dead or is calling it a nonliving object easier on our sensibilities? A stone can't die because it never was alive.

↪TheMadFool
It seems that a lot of problems are solved by the gun.
— Prishon
I think the OP is being ironic.

Gun ownership, gun responsibility/irresponsibility, possession are all separate issues that get tangled together.

Here's my wish list - given that in the US guns are going to be a fact of life for a while - modeled after car ownership.

1) Ownership. Controlled and licensed. Successful completion of both education and training required.

1. a) National gun registry. All guns registered.

1. b) Control over types and capacities of guns. No ownership of guns inappropriate for stated purposes. Every gun owned, owned for a stated purpose.

2) Possession/carrying. Zero open carry except uniformed/authorized personnel. Concealed carry controlled and licensed, training and education required. Also, concealed weapons must not be visible or easily discernable. A weapon seen or easily detectable is on longer concealed, but is open-carry.

3) Transporting. Controlled and licensed. Education and training required. Arms being transported either locked away or disabled and taken apart.

4) Responsibility. Gun owners responsible for their guns at all times while owned, including what their guns might be used for.

5) Penalties for owners for violations. A range, depending on the violation but in all cases severe and understood to be severe, without exception. Including absolute responsibility for bullets and any damage they might do.

Some years ago a woman in the semi-rural town of Hermon, Maine was shot dead in her backyard by a hunter who claimed he thought she was a deer. That is, she was targeted and not killed by a stray shot.

"On a crisp, blustery day in 1988, Karen Wood, 37, a mother of twins, was shot to death in her backyard by Donald Rogerson, a local hunter who said he mistook her white mittens for the underside of a deer's tail." https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901122&slug=1105518
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/karenwood/

The hunter was not indicted for anything. It's my view that being responsible for his bullet, he should have been automatically guilty of at least involuntary or negligent homicide, or worse.

Guns are serious. Too many irresponsible/incompetent clowns and cowboys have them. Let owners, as well as gum wielders, pay their part of the true cost of gun ownership in the US. — tim wood

An excellent draft for any future gun laws/restrictions. Kudos to you. :up:

Yes, I think the OP was being ironic but guns were, still are, probably will remain as a member of the solution set for many people, especially in those areas that are part of the gun culture like the underworld, gangs, druggies, human and drug traffickers, etc.

My personal take on guns is that the condom principle applies in full: better to have it and not need it than to need and not have it.

Along the same trajectory, my hunch is that the condom principle in re guns is a chain reaction: I buy a gun, you too need one to protect yourself against me; someone else needs one to equalize with the two of us; lather, rinse, repeat. Since guns are already available in the market, and people have already bought them, the chain reaction I was talking about is in progression full throttle as we speak.

I’ll take my umbrella with me, obviously. — Possibility

So, not knowing whether it'll rain or not tomorrow means you'll take your umbrella.

What about if you know it'll rain tomorrow. You'll take your umbrella, right?

Being agnostic about tomorrow's precipitation status is the same as knowing tomorrow will be a rainy day. What's the point of being an agnostic then? After all, an rain-agnostic taking the umbrella is equivalent to assuming it'll rain and doing the same.

Another poor analogy, — Possibility

This isn't an analogy. It's a real-world example of how being agnostic won't cut it when it comes to decision-making.

My point is that I fail to see the necessity of permanently locking in one belief or another. The only reason I can think of is that it renders my actions more predictable for others. There is an overall pattern to my actions in some areas of life that could be interpreted as a belief in God, and others that could be construed as atheism. But I don’t think the apparent contradiction is my problem, really. — Possibility

:up: :ok:

:ok:

I'll take first bite.

Who should be allowed to wear a gun? — Prishon

[...]a lot of problems are solved by the gun — Prishon

You've answered your own question. Pat yourself on the back and give yourself a treat.

Where is the $250.00 in scenario #1 and #2? — James Riley

That's tax. If the government wants to keep it why give it and then take it back? Something doesn't add up.

I don't have a problem paying taxes so that a kid somewhere can get surgery.
Why would I?
Found in many civilized societies. — jorndoe

:up: Beautiful attitude! Kudos.

I want to bounce this nagging doubt I have off of you and others interested:

Indian Giver Tax Puzzle

Scenario 1
Person A to person B: I'm going to pay you $2,000 for the work you've done but I'm gonna need $250 back. You get in your hand $1750. The typical way taxes work.

Scenario 2
Person A to person B: I'm gonna pay you $1750 ($2000 - $250) for your work. You can keep it all. You get $1750.

I can't for the life of me get why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2? A government can save millions by saving on the paperwork that's involved in tax deductions/payments which is no longer required.

Where is the $250.00 in scenario #1 and #2?
— James Riley

That's tax. If the government wants to keep it why give it and then take it back? Something doesn't add up. — TheMadFool

You ARE serious!? :lol: — Prishon

Serious, bad sometimes, good sometimes. Seriously sick, always bad. — Confucius

:smile:

By the same token, they could have loved each other to dead. — Prishon

Even though that's really hard for some to wrap their heads around, I can relate to it - for better or worse, my romantic relationships have been exclusively one-sided, myself being the one head over heels in love, the love-interest :meh: and even :vomit:

Love lesson 1.

You want this :point:



You definitely don't want this :point:



Way off-topic but had to get this off my chest.

If one abuses oneself via an activity which involves ab/using another sentient (e.g. sex with a sheep) or ab/using a nonsentient (e.g. sex with a robot gyn/andr-oid), then that's immoral within a negative utilitarian and/or aretaic moral framework. The latter is 'the lesser evil', so to speak, as there is no proximate collateral harm (i.e. a victim) as there is with the former. — 180 Proof

Point made, point taken!

Nonetheless, sex dolls probably give a man an experience superior to wanking, you know, like as if in bed with a real woman - that's it's selling point if I'm anywhere near the truth. Therein lies the rub.

(Btw, I hope to live long enough to "see" fully functional, nonsentient / p-zombie & customizable (adult-form only!) sex dolls sold at an affordable price on Amazon. :party: :yum:) — 180 Proof

May your dreams come true, 180 Proof, may they be,

Realer than real (Hyper-reality). — Bernardo Kastrup (on psychedelic experiences)

:up: :lol:

How do you make decisions when you don't know (something)?

Say you don't know whether it'll rain tomorrow or not. How will you plan for the morrow? You have to assume either that it'll rain or not, right?
— TheMadFool

There’s no final decision either way to be made here. As you say, either it’ll rain or not. You can plan for only one outcome, taking a calculated risk, or choose to include both possibilities in your plans. And all of this regardless of what you believe, which could well change every time you ask yourself the question, or check the forecast. Why lock yourself into a plan until you have to? — Possibility

It seems I've failed to make my point. If you don't know whether it'll rain or not tomorrow, what do you plan to do the coming day with your umbrella or Mackintosh?

Why? "Robots" (e.g. electric can-openers, department store escalators, clocks, vaccines, seeds) are not sentient in any manner recognizable by us. — 180 Proof

On target 180 Proof, not something new to you. I guess I'm trying to draw a rather disturbing similarity between machines - the most popular term for AI (The Matrix/Terminator/others) - and slaves. We treated one (slaves) as we treat the other (machines).

Of course, there's a very good reason why we do this despite our own slave heritage (black/white/brown/yellow) - machines aren't (as of yet) sentient. Nonetheless, this :point: sex dolls suggests that once we have humanoid robots, it's going to get pretty hard not to get emotionally attached to them, sentient or not. If I can engage in coitus with a sex doll and experience pleasure even if only submaximally, I still am treating the, rather unfortunate sex doll, as a person; if this isn't true what happened to perfectly reliable old-fashioned handjobs?

"There is light at the end of this tunnel :sweat:
"

No! Its another train...:gasp: — Prishon

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

No entity without identity — Wayfarer

I reckon you actually mean, no identity without entity. Indeed, if the I is a process instead of an entity, it can be copied from one physical medium to an identical physical medium or to another physical medium e.g. flux/flow (mindstream), a process, occurs in molten lava, melted wax, water, alcohol, you get the picture. Had the I been an entity, it would be, rather annoyingly and dully, confined to the substance it's made of. More degrees of freedom is how I'd put it.

Technically, this is not reincarnation as there is no self that dies and is re-born. That is the difference between reincarnation and re-birth. — Wayfarer

Indeed, reincarnation is wholly predicated on an entity that allegedly transmigrates from one body to another and, to my knowledge, is a static record/snapshot of usually memories/inclinations. A pitifully impoverished view of what self/I is compared to the Citta Santana view which is the self/I as a dynamic, animated, vibrant video.

when an artwork is reproduced, what entity travels from the original to the reproductions? — Wayfarer

Information - from which shade of color to apply to how my paintbrush should move across the canvas - and so, my best hunch is you think souls are pure information. Did I catch your drift? Hmmm :chin:

True that information requires some kind of physical medium to hold it, as pattern on it I suppose, but patterns aren't physical per se, they're abstractions of the way matter and energy appear in certain permutations/combinations (arrangements).

But the question is: is it an analogue one? — Prishon

Truth be told, our brains seem capable of grasping multivalent and fuzzy logic and that seems to suggest some kind of analog nature to it. However, even digital computers seem as able, which undermines any conclusions that our encephalon is analog in form and/or function.

But reincarnation requires a transferance of a metaphysical entity that, oddly, rhymes with sole - a soul - from one dead body to a living fetus. Your scenario makes no mention of souls.

If that hurts you I wont do that. — Prishon

There is light at the end of this tunnel :sweat:

presupposes
— Prishon

I can smash every robot in the world without feeling remorse. — Prishon

Please, please, don't do that. Take this as a plea, a earnest, heart-felt entreaty. :pray:

a person who believes in humanism (= the idea that people do not need a god or religion to satisfy their spiritual and emotional needs)

The pre-theistic moral vacuum conundrum for theism
If god's necessary for morality, explain how humans got to the point, sans religion mind you, when god was introduced to them via revelation by so-called prophets? Those early humans should've killed each other off without religion, assuming religion is, as theists claim, a must for morality.

Proto-morality (there's a thread on it, you'll have to do a search).

Most of the brain's activities are sub- or non-conscious. The conscious mind is cut out of all the internal traffic -- or at least, 99.9% — Bitter Crank

User Illusion

The user illusion is the illusion created for the user by a human–computer interface, for example the visual metaphor of a desktop used in many graphical user interfaces. The phrase originated at Xerox PARC.

Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. — Wikipedia

Was it Sigmund Freud, can't recall, who used the iceberg analogy for consciousness? It basically states that what we're aware of consciously is only 10% of all the brain processing at any one time.

N.B. Only 10% of an iceberg is visible above the water. The rest, a huge 90%, is underwater.

Do you really think we treat robots likes slaves? That presupposes robots experience. But they don't. You cojld ask how I know but I know... — Prishon

Then this is where we part ways...Good luck, fellow traveller.

Are you serious? — Prishon

Yes. Are you serious?

Read above.

I can tell you are a tool-user and X is a tool. The only question is whether X is natural born or not; and that might will tell something more about you. — 180 Proof

An air conditioner. A fan. — khaled

Is it me? I'm not sure but my point is there's an overlap in the traits that define slaves and robots. Commonalities tend to elicit a sense of oneness, unity, camarederie, brotherhood, kinship, between categories that relate in this way. For instance, we call primates our cousins and once we view apes in this light, we immediately become reluctant to do bad things to them, things we have no qualms over doing to other animals.

Let it not be forgotten thought that this is not a hard and fast rule - chimps are test subjects in the dangerous phases of drug trials, bush meat sells, etc., as the following character in Shakespeare's play Macbeth laments,

The near in blood, The nearer bloody. — Donalbain

Setting the exceptions to the more or less general rule of acknowledging our genetic closeness aside, it's safe to say that we do mind harming/hurting our less-evolved cousins.

If so, we, as scions of slaves ourselves, should feel, if our heart is in the right place, some degree of distress when using robots. That's all.

Right and wrong

Good and bad

Good and evil

Are three totally different things. Although related. — hope

Expand and elaborate...please.

Update

Imagine if I tell you that I have an entity X and I make X work from daybreak to nightfall in my house, I bought X from the market, I don't pay X for the work X does, and if X is unable to do the work assigned to X, I simply abandon X and go to the market and find a replacement. With the information I've provided, only the clues given, can you tell whether X is a slave or a robot? :chin: There's something robotish about slaves and, conversely, there's something slavish about robots.

well, lots of people believe that "private is better" "public is worse". The question isn't whether insured well informed care consumers can get good care in the US, or not. They can. The question is whether the good care they get can be provided for less money (it can) and more equitably (it can). But not within the private, for profit model.

What the US has is a continuum of care quality ranging between excellent and mediocre. Where on the continuum of quality one will end up depends first on money (do you have good insurance) and then on knowledge. One really should get the same quality of care without respect to money or how well can decode the system.

Will everybody get luxury grade care in a single payer, government operated system? It may well be that in the government operated hospital NOBODY gets luxury grade care (private room, order off special menu, private nurses, etc.). And really, why should one get such care? Expensive frills like that relate to the ability to pay, rather than medical benefit.

In the free enterprise system, whether you get care at all can depend on the ability to pay. No insurance? No surgery. — Bitter Crank

So, it all boils down to how much one's able to spend - graded service with costs pro rata are available for the ill. That's the classic format for private enterprise. There's money to be made of course - the rich will shell out the cash for services that match 5 star hotels they're so accustomed to - but the downside is the lower-income groups will be left out in the cold because they're no longer the demographic the privatized health sector caters to. One filthy rich person will be equivalent to, money-wise, probably 50 average Joes. You do the math.

I'm afraid the brain has to be a digital computer, if it's a computer at all, since neuronal firing is all or none (on/off or 1/0).

If you nationalize the health sector, more people can afford healthcare but quality takes a hit.

If you privatize the healthsector, quality is A1 but fewer people can afford it.
— TheMadFool

There is nothing intrinsically worse about the quality of socialized health care. There is nothing intrinsically better about the quality of privatized health care. — Bitter Crank

Then what's all the fuss about? I'm curious.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity and possibility. It includes questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mind and matter. — Wikipedia

Now, from the above, "definition", it might appear that there's an essence to metaphysics but I don't think there's one because the term was simply a label for what followed physics in Aristotle's body of works and it was an assortment of topics that weren't in any way unified by a common theme. Metaphysics is just a fancy way of saying miscellaneous.

This is the same issue Isaac raised. I think that's more capitalism than the state, tho. — frank

What a lovely coincidence! Good to know I'm on the same wavelength as Isaac.

What can I put on the table that someone hasn't already? Let's see...

It's not the ill that kills you, it's the doctor's bill that kills you! Double jeopardy! The state has to figure out why this is the case.