Not a bad explanation. And interesting OP, too. — Apollodorus

A novice's best shot! If it makes sense at some level then I chalk it up to beginner's luck! The OP? Thank :point: @Wayfarer

But do we do that before or after we learn how to drink, how to be a farmer, and how to be a bad emperor? — Apollodorus

Great question! As I said,

I may have missed a spot here and there! — TheMadFool

For better or worse, I'm not omniscient!

And what about why? — Apollodorus

2. Why does God exist?
We must know how to prove/disprove God exists. — TheMadFool

A sophist's notion of 'wisdom' – a syllabus of self-help nostroms. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Point! However, you're a veteran philosopher and philosophizing is second nature to you, your middle name so to speak. For beginners, on the other hand, how to do philosophy? is a skill that has a steep learning curve, especially for those self-taught. Self-help books on philosophy are just what the doctor ordered!

Thanks a million Wayfarer for starting what to me is a thread that provides a deep insight into what wisdom is. To put it simply, in line with the book titles that appear in the website you provided the link to, wisdom boils down to how to? guides. The underlying idea behind wisdom perceived in this manner is that of method and technique. This conception of wisdom has an Eastern analog viz. The Tao (The Way) but that's another story.

Everyone knows what the 6W1H is. Allow me to explain why how? is the mother of all questions and by doing that justify why how? underpins the holy grail of philosophy aka wisdom.

1. What is an elephant?
We must know how to identify an elephant.

2. Why does God exist?
We must know how to prove/disprove God exists.

3. Who is Aristotle?
We must know how to identify Aristotle

4. When is the right time to plant corn?
We must know how to find out the right time to plant corn.

5. Which is better, sex or food?
We must know how to determine better.

6. Where is Paris?
We must know how to find the location of Paris.

7. How to think? A contender for the title of the most important question of all time.

HOW?

Amateur:
a) Method: Any answer to how? will do. A child's method of solving problems involves guessing ( :chin: hmmmm). An adult's method might take that to a new level as in systematic but still guessing.


Pro:
b) Technique: Not any answer to how? will be accepted. Aspects like efficiency (spatial/temporal/others) :cool: , aesthetics :heart: , to name a few will matter.

I may have missed a spot here and there!

Violence Asymmetry
1. It is rare indeed to find a party [a lone individual or a group of any size (community, state, military bloc)] willing to be the first to assault. Take note of the fact that I didn't say no one and instead mentioned only that it is rare to find people who are willing to initiate violence.

2. No one likes to be assaulted. An obvious truth anyone acquainted with violence is aware of.

The violence asymmetry: (Some) persons maybe willing to be the first to assault but no person wants to be assaulted.

The reasons for this are quite clear:

People want to keep their options open, violence is retained as a possible means of achieving a desired end. If the situation is "normal" using force should be a last resort but if SNAFU, might is right.

On the flip side, everyone is well aware of the horrors of war (extreme, indiscriminate violence) and so wish to steer clear of any recourse to arms.

As should be obvious, the violence asymmetry is the mechanism that kickstarts and sustains what has come to be known as the vicious cycle of arms race - invent & mass produce weapons for offense, this then eliciting a counterbalancing but now defense-oriented identical response. Since this is a positive feedback loop, each component in the system impelling the other forward, there really is no upper bound that could halt the process. Boys with their toys :roll:

Interesting but besides the point. Daily living, as I point out, (structurally) provides glimpses – epiphanies – of not existing (via ineluctable gaps in awareness and memories). For me these are enough. — 180 Proof

Hey, 180 Proof! Oh, it's no use! He's too far ahead. Let's hope he takes a break and maybe then we can catch up with faer! :rofl:

Any fact you can think of – concrete, not abstract – is finite, always can change or cease to be. Thinking is also a fact (not the contents which are merely abstract but the activity or process) which can cease to be. This a priori contingency enables thinking of counterfactuals and alternative scenarios, plans of action and predictions. One can think of oneself not thinking or, in principle, the nonexistence (nonbeing) of thinking insofar as the activity of thought itself is contingent (i.e. can cease to be). — 180 Proof

You have a point. I'm particularly interested in counterfactuals - thinking of possibilities (what can be) instead of factuals (what is). Thus, the mind, in principle, should be able to ponder death/nonexistence (a counterfactual). Sam Harris' method as outlined in the OP is just that.

Yet, I have this nagging doubt regarding whether or not "One can think of oneself not thinking..." Allow me to explain. To contemplate death/nonexistence, one has to have some idea of what not thinking is like but that's impossible because one has to simultaneously be not thinking and thinking - not thinking so that we may assume the mind state of death/nonexistence and thinking to get a feel of what it's like to be not thinking - and that's a contradiction!

This may seem like a total loss but no, it isn't because in line with the purpose of Zen koans - make the mind "crash", make it unable to process what we demand of it, make it stop cogitating - the aforementioned contradiction is just what the doctor ordered. It's like being sucker punched in the face by late boxing legend Muhammad Ali - your mind experiences an acute crisis and is unable to process the input (Ali's punch = the contradiction) and for a brief moment the mind or the brain if you like hangs like a computer subjected to information overload. Put differently, thinking grinds to a halt and that's what death/nonexistence (cessation of consciousness/thinking is (like)! Mushin no shin (mind without mind)!

It must be noted though that Zen doesn't seem to view the mushin no shin state of mind as death/nonexistence - it's actually something else and my hunch is it's the Chinese & Japanese conceptualization of nirvana/bodhi.

This squares with the patriarch Gautama Buddha's view that life is suffering or, rephrased for logical clarity, if you're alive then you suffer. Naturally then, taking the contrapositive, if you don't (want to) suffer then you're (you need to be) dead/nonexistent. Thus, to end your suffering, you need to not exist which is just another way of saying you need to stop thinking. Zen koans are designed to do just that - make you stop thinking.

As you might've already noticed this leads to a paradox: Life is suffering as per the Buddha and Zen buddhism recommends that to end suffering one needs to turn off the mind but as I said :point:

More updates

The Unthinking-Suffering Equivalence

1. If in pain, not thinking (too painful to think)
2. If not thinking, in pain (people dislike being called a fool)
Ergo,
3. Pain = Not thinking (1, 2 logical equivalence)
Ergo,
4. Maximum pain (hell) = Thinking impossible (pesudo-nonexistence)
Ergo,
5. If we were/are capable of thinking but we didn't (before birth and after death), it could be said that we were in hell (before birth) and we'll go back to hell (after death). — TheMadFool

suffering itself turns off the mind! Put simply, suffering switches off the mind and Zen buddhism's solution (nirvana) is to switch off the mind. That's like saying the best way to handle an accident that caused the lights to go off is to switch off the lights?! It's already off!!

That means, those in hell, completely unable to have even a single thought, overwhelmed as they are by the most excruciating torture, are enlightened beings, bona fide buddhas! What then do we make of buddhahood advertized as a total, eternal bliss?



:confused: Oh well!

The State, the Church, the Corporation — Xtrix

I'd opt for all three. Let them be at each other's throats, that'll keep them busy and out of our hair! :lol:

Good luck! :up:

Keep at it ToothyMaw. I'm sure there's light at the end of tunnel!

More updates

The Unthinking-Suffering Equivalence

1. If in pain, not thinking (too painful to think)
2. If not thinking, in pain (people dislike being called a fool)
Ergo,
3. Pain = Not thinking (1, 2 logical equivalence)
Ergo,
4. Maximum pain (hell) = Thinking impossible (pesudo-nonexistence)
Ergo,
5. If we were/are capable of thinking but we didn't (before birth and after death), it could be said that we were in hell (before birth) and we'll go back to hell (after death).

Thanatos is the one true religion and Algea is his prophet!

The reason we find nothing problematic - I think - is because we are knowledgeable creatures as a matter of our constitution. We can categorize, make sense of, measure, compare, contemplate, appreciate, contextualize, discern, wonder about, etc. We just can't help it.

So imagining a "state" in which we can do none of these things at all goes against our nature (while being awake, at least), hence the agony. — Manuel

I have a feeling you're on the right track. I see a vicious cycle forming even as I write this. Extreme suffering is another path to achieving the Mu state:

1. I'm in agony, thus I can't think.

2. I can't think, thus I'm in agony

Thus, the two are what I'd like to call a deadly duo - a positive feedback loop that spirals out of control and before you realize what's happened, you're in thick soup! :chin:

But there is a silver lining. While we are afraid of death, I think that if we try to apply fear, worry, anxiety, pain and all the bad things in life to the "state before" birth, none apply. Not even boredom. How bored were you before you were born? Huh? — Manuel

Most interesting! So, if the vicious cycle I spoke of above is true, we were all in hell :fear: :grimace: (before we were born) and we're all going back to hell (after we die). I wonder what antinatalists have to say about this?! @schopenhauer1

oxygen deprivation — Jack Cummins

I'm a chain smoker, depriving myself of oxygen is a regular feature in my life!

Update

near death experiences — Jack Cummins

Parisians not knowing the dying — Corvus

watched a dying — unenlightened

Dying can be experienced and thus conceived. Sorry for failing to notice this earlier - I'm not the sharpesr knife in the drawer I'm afraid.

I felt a unsettling coldness in my heart but this isn't important. — TheMadFool

:broken: :fear: :death:

I've frequently pointed out that I see no good reason to think the "time after" life ceases will be different than the "time before" life began. I was nothing and will be nothing, same state. — Manuel

Sounds reasonable and also extremely intriguing. @Wayfarer Zen koans (oh! I hope I don't sound like a broken record) are supposed to force us into the Mu mind state (conscious without being conscious of anything) which I consider a thoughtless state much like how we were before we were born and how we'll be, as per your statement, after we die ("...same state...").

What did your face look like before your parents were born? — Wikipedia

Zen Buddhists seem to have a developed a taste for extremes - the Koan could've asked, "what did your face look like before you were born?" but no, that was just too mild for Chinese & Japanese Zen masters - carpe jugulum, make the Koan such that it causes maximum confusion and so, "what did your face look like before your parents were born?" :lol:

This is on point I hope.

So also, your mind cannot conceive of dreamless sleep. :P (Our use of language is annoying.) — Nils Loc

That's one of the nearest observation towers if you wanna take a look at Hades!

A marvellous idea. Don't take the sentence stating a rule as a single semantic unit and leave it at that. Also include the concepts/ideas that will obviously appear as phrases or words. See that the rule itself, as a whole, squares with the the parts, the constiuent concepts/ideas. The catch is this isn't new? It's the way it's always been done, not just with rules but every sentence that was, is, will be uttered. I don't get it! :chin:

So what's your angle for a better, war-free world? How do you do it? What are your thoughts? — DrOlsnesLea

Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war). — Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus

The arms race, a good benchmark of the violence index (how violent and war-ready we are), is precisely what our good but long dead Roman, Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, is referring to. The logic is rather simple. No country, community or person can trust another country, community or person.

The solution then seems obvious: Openly embrace pacifism and build trust - no backstabbing please, merci beaucoup!

What a sheltered life you lead! Have you never killed, or come across a corpse, or watched a dying? And to pre-empt the most obvious response, one gets the idea of oneself from seeing other people; if there were no others, one would not be able to imagine otherness, and one would be the world. The ideas of life and death both arise from experience of (m)others. — unenlightened

To All

We can conceive of body death. Just imagine yourself as a decaying corpse in a coffin 6 feet underground with a headstone jutting out of the earth. We can also try Sam Harris' what's wrong with this picture? (the nonexistent/dead you is missing) technique.

We can't concieve of mind death. What is it that we can think of as absent from a given mental image of the world? what is it that can be lying in a grave? What is it that mind can say with an acceptable level of confidence is missing/ended/extinguished upon death. The body? No! Then what? — TheMadFool

These deeds (kill), these objects (corpse), these events (dying) are, to my knowledge, merely surrogates of nonexistence/death. They aren't the real McCoy so to speak. They're, as I attempted to put up for discussion, merely shadows (Plato's cave analogy & 3D projections of 4D objects like the tesseract) of nonexistence/death - they're ultimately the mind trying hard to conceive of the inconceivable, here death!

Set all of the above aside for the moment. All I ask of you is to present here for our benefit a lucid & vivid description of, not body death (easy problem of death), but of mind death (hard problem of death). If I'm in anywhere close to the truth, the words "DOES NOT COMPUTE!" should make sense to you. In other words, expect your mind to crash like a computer and that, ironically, is as close to an experience of actual death as possible.

This is a bit silly. I cannot experience tomorrow, I cannot experience what is over the horizon, I cannot experience what is in the next room. Most of what we talk about is what we cannot or do not experience. "Conceiving is what we do instead of experiencing. — unenlightened

My bad! I wasn't clear enough but, in my defense, you're being a tad silly too. Imagining the future , what lies over the horizon, what's in the next room, etc. are conceivable only in terms of past & present actual experiences. Death, on thep other hand, can't be conceived because there's no experience (past/present) we can draw from to make that possible.

How does a person experience dementia? presumably he finds himself learning about things that he has good reason to believe he has previously forgotten. But how does he classify an experience as being of something forgotten? Whatever the experiential criteria, perhaps an avid learner should consider dementia to be the ultimate learning experience. — sime

Excelente!

Dementia is basically forgetfullness taken to extremes. Your memories are being erased in ways and degrees classifiable as an illness. It reminds me of the statement, "I wasn't born yesterday, you know!"

it hasn't any meaning — unenlightened

Whenever ( :chin: ) I encounter these words [infinity, nothing] and others of its ilk (so-called unknownables) my mind actually draws a blank. Thanks for the update (I see myslef as a computer, in need of broadband and the latest "updates". I hope you don't hold that against me. It's not a choice.)

Anyway, an analogy seems to be the first port of call :point: Tesseract. Just like 4D objects (inconceivable so they say) cast 3D shadows, these shadows being more mind-friendly, unknowables too should/could have shadows that our minds can, in a sense, grasp. — TheMadFool

There is nothing one has failed to do except to notice the knot in the language. — unenlightened

A salient point I must admit. For my money, language was not designed as much for cogitation than it was for communication. Thus there are some experiences that can only be conveyed via metaphor. Put simply, the set of experiences humans are capable exceeds the set of words that language us. Wittgenstein may be relevant but I don't know enough to comment any more than I already have.

Don't you mean we can't experience mind death — Nils Loc

Yep but that was my point. Since the mind can't experience death, it can't conceive of death.

As a further point @Corvus

Firstly, it seems rather hard to believe that the mind can conceive of actual death (no mind). The mind hasn't/can't experience death because once death occurs, the mind winks out of existence. It's kinda like asking a man what labor pain feels like.

Secondly, but, it could be said, that's precisely what death is. @180 Proof mentioned forgetting as a good way of thinking about mortality. I'm going out on a limb and say that at some level, remembering = conceiving. If so, not remembering/conceiving anything (death) is equivalent to remembering/conceiving nothing. Meno's paradox!

:chin:

dreamless sleep — Jack Cummins

A very fascinating take on death - dreamless sleep. This particular way of viewing death is, if I may say so, mind death but Sam Harris' and my way of looking at morte is body death. I suppose this distinction is vital to our general approach to Thanatos. It'a unclear to me how?

Deep sleep — Nils Loc

See my reply to Jack Cummins.

To All

We can conceive of body death. Just imagine yourself as a decaying corpse in a coffin 6 feet underground with a headstone jutting out of the earth. We can also try Sam Harris' what's wrong with this picture? (the nonexistent/dead you is missing) technique.

We can't concieve of mind death. What is it that we can think of as absent from a given mental image of the world? what is it that can be lying in a grave? What is it that mind can say with an acceptable level of confidence is missing/ended/extinguished upon death. The body? No! Then what?

There are people in Paris observing the Eiffel tower, who are not observing the computer monitor you are observing; in other words, your computer monitor doesn't exist as far as Parisians are concerned.

And so presumably according to Sam Harris, he has given you a glimpse as to what the non-existence of your monitor is. — sime

:ok:

Imagining own death seem just imagining only which has no real significance again in one's real life apart from having some nightmares? — Corvus

@180 Proof (only if interested)

Whenever ( :chin: ) I encounter these words [infinity, nothing] and others of its ilk (so-called unknownables) my mind actually draws a blank. Thanks for the update (I see myslef as a computer, in need of broadband and the latest "updates". I hope you don't hold that against me. It's not a choice.)

Anyway, an analogy seems to be the first port of call :point: Tesseract. Just like 4D objects (inconceivable so they say) cast 3D shadows, these shadows being more mind-friendly, unknowables too should/could have shadows that our minds can, in a sense, grasp. — TheMadFool

The quote is from another thread but is relevant to the discussion.

The mind (imagination) is capable of only grasping at the shadow of death/nonexistence, a few of them appear in 180 Proof's post and one in the OP.

Sure it's a waste ... But do you really think that I am going to ponder on something that a Mad Fool tells me? — Alkis Piskas

:smile: Remember, I'm only your echo, your reflection!

Unconsciousness — 180 Proof

Indeed, we can imagine ourselves unconscious, even as a rotting, stinkbomb of a corpse as recommended by certain Tibetan Buddhists.

Forgetting — 180 Proof

Bingo! One can't remember anything before you existed and being unable to recall parts of one's life is in that sense just another way death makes itself known to us.

Thinking 'the contingency of thinking' (Brassier). — 180 Proof

I'd like some details on that if you don't mind. What I feel is being alluded to is the fact that thinking, what we feel is an integral part of existence, is contingent - it needn't have to be.

One can also try conceive the times and world before one's birth — Corvus

See my reply to 180 Proof above. However, as I recall now, forgetting = not recording. I hope you catch my drift.

I've been thinking about how the gap between amateur and professional philosophy could be better bridged — Pfhorrest

The amateur needs the professional's experience and the professional needs the amateur's novel viewpoint. Many a times, professional philosophers are so absorbed in figuring out and learning by heart what has been said that they simply don't have the time or the energy contemplating on what can be said.

Amateurs, on the other hand, aren't bogged down in this way, they know next to nothing of what has been said and ergo, they're all about what can be said. The downside? What can be said is precisely what has been said (reinventing the wheel, committing the same mistakes as one's predcessors).

It's a dilemma:

Either risk making the same mistakes/waste time reinventing the wheel (amateur) OR spend your entire life memorizing standard positions and responses to them (professional).

Protagoras paradox seems relevant but that's another story.

How can we put an amateur and a professional in the same room and hope for sparks to fly, you know, let magic happen?

This, at first, seemed to me an unsolvable problem but then I realized it's only so in terms of 1 person, individualistic in flavor but all one has to do is to kindle the team spirit in ourselves and a solution presents itself - the amateur and the professional complement each other, together the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. :lol:

War! Kill OR Killed! That "OR" seems really, really (sorry couldn't think of a better superlative) important!

This happens to me all the time. The answer is usually "No.", but occasionally, "No, thank you, I want to laze." — unenlightened

:lol:

Very interesting!

So, we're, in our "ordinary" lives, stuck with rules that are neither justified to our satisfaction nor universal in scope. We then look at math and are bowled over as it were by the rules therein that are well-justified and universal to boot. Thus, we come to the realization that we're stuck with flawed rules (ordinary) while also being completely in the know about flawless rules (math) - disappointment is a given (we're missing out on something "better"), fear is unavoidable (our lives are structured around rules that have no underlying truth i.e. we're lost).

What if, in keeping with Wittgenstein's ludological analogy, rules are more about making the "game" more fun, more interesting and less about justification? In other words, rules don't need to be justified in that they have to make sense, instead they have to ensure the "game" is enjoyable, exciting, and pleasurable but also "painful" enough to, ironically, make the "playing" the "game" a serious affair.

Off-topic?!

The brain (I don't know about mind) ABSOLUTELY gains in mass and volume just as with any other organ. Stuff (blood, chemicals, nutrients, etc, etc,) go in and out of the brain constantly. The only dispute is how appreciable/measurable the changes are. The brain consumes energy (chemical/biological) in its functionality. Therefore, at different times it has different energy levels. — BrianW

I did consider that possibility - blood flow is the mass equivalent of increased energy consumption - but that still doesn't solve the problem. I'm looking at thinking, or as 180 Proof likes to call it (mind)ing, as a conversion of one form of energy (electrical) into another form of energy (thoughts). We can do work with electrical energy but I've never heard of thoughts being used to do work. What I mean is the action potential in neurons can run a tiny nano-motor but I don't think the thought corresponding to that action potential can pull off a similar feat.

No doubt this Zen tale was exaggerated for effect but the point it makes is crystal clear. time is tripartite (past, present, future). The past - don't cry over spilt milk, that ship has sailed, you've missed the bus, the train has left the station and so on and that's that. We have left over the present and the future. These two are like conjoined twins - what you do to one, the present, affects the other, the future, causality 101. Ergo, we have to, we must, always factor the future in any calculus done in the present. What then to make of this piece of Zen wisdom? It's wrong of course! Nonetheless, it contains a valuable lesson - don't get so absorbed in planning (for the future) that you become oblivious of the present. In short, have the best of both worlds, enjoy what's enjoyable in the present but do think about the future. It's not an either or option, both can be yours! :chin: In terms of romantic liaisons, you'd be a two-timing bastard/bitch! :chin: Reminds me of myself. :lol:

I've discoverd a new fallacy, thanks to you for reminding me and the credit also goes to a certain woman (A).

Best of both worlds fallacy (exclusive/inclusive OR)

Now this woman, A, asked me, on a lazy Sunday afternoon, "what do you want to do? Do the dishes or clean the house?" I opted to do the dishes and no sooner than I'd finished, she asked me to clean the house (with her). I wanted to object but then my knowledge of logic forbade me to do so. After all, she (A) hadn't specified whether the or was the exclusive or "or" the inclusive or. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

As far as I know, both Boole and Bayes dabbled in mathematical probability.

No general method for the solution of questions in the theory of probabilities can be established which does not explicitly recognise, not only the special numerical bases of the science, but also those universal laws of thought which are the basis of all reasoning, and which, whatever they may be as to their essence, are at least mathematical as to their form. — George Boole

What do you reckon Boole meant by that?

Not really, I’m saying that homosexuality and incest are morally equivalent unless certain practical considerations such as the risk of pregnancy are mentioned. Saying that something is equivalent isn’t the same as saying something is identical. For example, 10 dimes are monetarily equivalent to a dollar bill but they are obviously not the same thing as a dollar bill. I don’t think it matters who you have sex with unless someone can mention some kind of a practical reason for why you maybe shouldn’t have sex with a particular person. — TheHedoMinimalist

You said

if it’s enthusiastic consent then I don’t think it matters much either way — TheHedoMinimalist

Can you state the circumstances in which your statement (above) is true?

I ask because my last post (to which you replied) is about how incest = homosexuality but in the context in which your statement (quoted above) is true.

Thank you for that answer. My mind draws a blank too, but isn't this blank necasserily something? I must be getting confused in the language.
As for the second part of your answer, that seems to be similar to Kants idea that the 'thing in itself', that which lies beyond appearances, is recognised indirectly through appearances.
Should I just be satisfied with the unknown being these blanks, and leave it at that? — Aidan buk

Well, if you're going to put your money where your mouth is, I suggest that you contemplate on, mentally engage with, contradictions which in my humble opinion is the unknowable of unknowables (did I say that right? I dunno!). Look around you, go for a walk in the woods, go eat out in a deli with your friends, walk up to your arch enemy and see how fae reacts, eat a burger, take a swim, go AWOL, and so on - can you or did you already see, the shadow of dialethia?

I gave you two examples to show you that words do not determine one's experience(s). I can give you a lot more, but I don't see the point. As I can see, you ignored them. So that's it for me. — Alkis Piskas

You do realize that what you're saying is words are a waste of time, don't you? I'll leave you with that to ponder upon.

eternity, nothingness — Aidan buk

Whenever ( :chin: ) I encounter these words and others of its ilk (so-called unknownables) my mind actually draws a blank. Thanks for the update (I see myslef as a computer, in need of broadband and the latest "updates". I hope you don't hold that against me. It's not a choice.)

Anyway, an analogy seems to be the first port of call :point: Tesseract. Just like 4D objects (inconceivable so they say) cast 3D shadows, these shadows being more mind-friendly, unknowables too should/could have shadows that our minds can, in a sense, grasp.

My two bitcoins!

The "examined life", as Socrates put it, is about putting down facts next to one's weltanschauung and checking if they cohere. Essentially, does one's worldview match reality, a quintessentially scientific enterprise that ultimately, through a iterative process involving hypotheses, observational testing, reworking, and so on, until one arrives at a model of the real world that best captures reality. In the end, it's about truth, how close to it one can get without getting burnt! :chin:

Of course words enrich one's world — Alkis Piskas

In other words vocab is a good index of the richness of a life. — TheMadFool

Clarification: Words don't enrich our lives as much as it's a marker of the breadth of one's experiences.

Imagine a person who knows the names of each part of a motorcycle and someone who doesn't. Imagine also that the latter has clocked more bike-hours than the former. Now, think of an animal (linguistically challenged). Which of the two people is closest to being an animal? I'm beginning to wonder if animals have it better than us - should we dispense with the linguistic rigamarole and get down to business? Pleaaasse!

By the way, you do realize this conversation is only possible because you have a certain level of command over the English language. Paradoxical! :chin: Hmmmm...Language committing seppuku!

War & ethics:

War causes ethical inversion, a few instances of which are:

1. Killing is permissible and even glorified. Death to the enemy!

2. Rape becomes a crime more heinous than killing. War atrocities, crimes against humanity. The Koreans & Chinese have more or less forgiven Japanese-inflicted war casualties but so-called comfort women still, after even 7 decades, are seeking justice.

if it’s enthusiastic consent then I don’t think it matters much either way. — TheHedoMinimalist

You mean to say homosexuality = incest. That's why you "...I don't think it matters much either way..."

So, if a man who has sex with his son (homosexuality + incest) = the same man having sex with his daughter (incest).

In other words, homosexuality + incest = incest. Speaking for myself, that doesn't make sense.

You mean the mind can create a world beyond the world in itself? Yes indeed! And if you accept that every consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, then you might also accept that every world view is also unique in the absolute sense, which might make you wonder what the world is, given we live in slightly different ones, depending upon our consciousness. :chin: FYI — Pop

:ok: :up:

This sounds unfortunate. One's world (reality) consists much more than words (language). It also contains images, sounds, feelings, experiences, ... In fact, one's world gets limited only when one tries to put it in words. This is what we mean when we say "I can't explain it in words ..."

Be your own "Wittgenstein" and let him be himself! :) — Alkis Piskas

What I meant to say was our world, i.e. our worldview, is determined by how many words (read concepts/ideas) we know/understand. In other words vocab is a good index of the richness of a life. For example if you don't know or don't recognize nautical terms it means your world is limited to land, you're what sailors call contemptuously a landlubber.

The Unicorn can exist physically as patterns of matter and energy ( information ) in your mind, just like all other thoughts, as neuroplasticity would suggest. — Pop

I see but I meant to stress on the mind's ability to transcend the physical by being able to conceive of stuff (like unicorns) that don't exist in the physical world. Even if the thought of unicorns are patterns of matter & energy that still doesn't diminsh the significance of unicorns as pure thought even after conceding the fact that unicorns are horses with horns (both physically instantiated).

The (mind)ing is what the brain does. The brain is physical. However else it might be conceived of, it follows that (mind)ing can also be conceived of as physical. Like digestion, seeing, dancing, respirating ... physical processes (activities), not things. (Mind)ing is a verb, not a noun. — 180 Proof

Yes, I get where you're coming from. (Mind)ing is simply the function the brain just as physical as digestion, the function of the gut. Indeed a function isn't a thing, at least not in the sense the thing that functions is - digestion lacks the thingness of the gut.