Emulation is a more exact replication compared to simulation. A clone would be an emulated replicant not a simulation. I am not convinced that electronic tech will be able to emulate a human consciousness but advances in quantum computing and the creation of organic computers in the future may eventually allow this. When genetic engineering, quantum/electronic computing all merge into one then I think the transhuman will reach a point pretty close to immortality as the storage of many backup copies of 'you,' may become trivial. Probabilistic accidental death has always been suggested as the eventual terminator for any projected longevity of human lifespan but the idea of backups might reduce that probability to close to 0. I think we are talking at least a few million years in the future however.
I read a New Scientist article recently that suggested that if all current technologies in the area are taken into account, the first person to live to between 135 and 170 years is alive today.
I assume that person will be one of the richest. The majority of the planet will be lucky to get close to the traditional threescore and ten.

I would say, the lack of superior wisdom or morality of the ruling elite — unenlightened

I would say that this has been getting exposure since the divine right of kings was suggested and even long before that. The ancient elite tried to peddle acceptance of supernatural authority delivered through them as the only authority we must comply with but many early individuals found the natural to be more super than the proposed supernatural omni's. I think social media does indeed allow the majority to discuss such ideas a lot more now than with the nonelectronic mediums of the past but another consequence is that if you don't have adequate background knowledge then you may be easily duped by those who peddle fake news and sophistry even more now than in the past. Perhaps it is harsh to call such individuals 'stupid,' but the issue of increased dupability (I may have just invented that word or spelling) remains.

We don't listen to serous debates by people with good insight, but to youtube debates between self-appointed pundits, more concerned with their own media image than anything else - just like the rest of us. — unenlightened

I think there are many such 'pundits' as you describe, present online, including YouTube.
Those who you would describe as such will most likely differ from those who I or others might describe as such.
I watch debates on youtube between many individuals dead and still living. I could provide a large list of those that I would describe as 'worth listening to' and of those who I would describe to the contrary. Same with you I suspect.

3. Mentally: ??? No data or conflicting reports. — Agent Smith

I find this quite interesting. If I think of my own group of friends, male/female/married/single/various sexual preferences etc. The aspects of their 'personality,' that I personally would lablel 'male,' or 'female,' are myriad, subjective and probably idealistic. They are probably also strongly driven by my experience of and indoctrination in stereotypes. I have often heard comments such as 'I am in touch with my female side,' or 'The woman in me wants to hug him the man in me wants to beat him up,' etc.
Although many of us have clarity of gender, it's hard to deny that we have aspects of our opposite gender personality. Is it just the physical differences between men and women that drive the mental conflict?

In western society (where most people are bothered) there just aren’t that many ‘sexual predators’ to worry about. — I like sushi

Oh, I don't know about that, I think the number of male sexual predators are evenly spread globally but I don't have any stats to back up what I am claiming. Perhaps you do, to back up what you are claiming.
I know I have many male friends who will try to 'chat up' women whenever they can, especially with a drink in them. If they shared toilets, I think they would try to 'chat up' women in there as well and perhaps be 'cheeky,' if they get rejected out of hand. There are serious issues of concern involved I think.

CRISPR and its possible projected future replacements/advancements are indeed very interesting but I wonder if transwoman to man or transman to woman will be eventually moot, if the current projections of future transhumanism are realised.

so I see no issue with anyone using any toilet. — I like sushi

I have no issue with it either but many many people do have an issue with shared gender public toilets.
Especially women who fear male sexual preditors.

If I could literally change into a female overnight I would definitely give it a try (as long as I could revert back to being male). Who wouldn’t out of sheer curiosity? — I like sushi

I wonder if VR(Virtual Reality) or AR(Augmented Reality) will reach a stage where you can wear a 'sensory encounter suit,' and sit inside a machine and wear a 'helmet,' that can allow you to become a virtual woman at any time.

It certainly does. Unfortunately I strongly disagree with the positions of all three of those thinkers. None of them have a grasp of what I consider to be the most important ideas in 20th and 21st century philosophy — Joshs

Fair enough but I assumed that you used the Jonathan Haidt paraphrase below because you agreed with it. You may still 'strongly disagree,' with them on other points they make of course.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says this is the era of stupid and he blames it on social media elevating the political fringes, which thereby bully everyone else into submission. Thus, cancel culture and Trumpism rule — Joshs

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” If one agrees that a crucial part of “being” a woman is being socialized as a woman, specifically at a young age — Paulm12

I remember in my youth, having a chat/debate with a homosexual man who at one point exclaimed.
'I don't care about biology! I am not a man and I never have been.' It was said with such conviction that I became convinced that 'the gender part' of his consciousness identified as female and it was as simple as that. That was not going to change in his lifetime and I just had to accept that. It was not a case of 'being polite.' This person was telling me something that I either accepted or was willing to war with forever because he was UNABLE to be any other way.
I think if transwomen/men are willing to take it as far as medical intervention and surgery then it's a done deal. I think you ultimately make space for transpeople or kill them because they can't be other than who and what they are. I don't think previous 'socialisation as a woman,' is an issue. I think they always have.
As a youth, I would perhaps engage in what was considered 'male activities' while the person I had the chat with may have been engaging in more female activities. As he claimed, 'he was never male.'

There is a significant advantage physically. It is that simple. — I like sushi

In terms of medicine it is kind of important that someone let the doctors know they are trans rather than just saying they are a woman. I think this is pretty obvious? Complications could easily arise for certain diseases and such if the doctor is not made aware of their patients sex above their preferred gender specification. — I like sushi

This is one of the 'issues,' isn't it, and the idea of transwomen having access to female toilets etc.
Maybe there should only be one type of toilet facility with individual large enough cubicles. Perhaps the communal area could have security camera's to protect everyone using it.
Very difficult. I wonder if Science can find some acceptable solutions in the future to the sports issue.
Maybe safe 'steroid' type medication could be given to women who transform into men to gain the increased strength they need within a set range and men transforming into women could have their strength reduced to a set range. Perhaps they could then compete in sports fairly. I suppose I am just 'guessing,' now but humans are quite good at finding solutions........eventually.
Maybe a (probably more controversial) genetic-based solution is possible, in the future, if science ever identifies exactly what causes the 'disagreement,' between the physical gender and conscious gender of an individual and finds a way to correct any ambiguity before birth. I don't know enough about biology or neuroscience to know if such detection and intervention is possible or not.

My feeling is that social media, email, text messages; the technology of the Internet and communications, discourages thought (and other things as well, such as prudence, consideration, patience). The emphasis is on responding, quickly and emotionally. Little or no effort is involved. The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. There's no need to verify or justify claims, and challenges may be ignored. There's no need to think, and no reward for thinking. The desire is to be the equivalent of the loudest know-it-all at the nearest bar — Ciceronianus

I think all you say here is valid, as some of the negatives associated with social media. I think there are many positives as well and that overall, the positives and negatives are pretty close to balancing the scale. Social media is still a fairly new phenomena, we are bound to investigate all the bad things that can be done with it as well as the good. We have had the same approach to 'new knowledge' or 'new tech,' since we learned to use fire to heat ourselves. One of us will always want to know what happens when you shove someone's face in it as well.
We eventually try to legislate/monitor/set guidelines to push the positives and restrict or defeat the negatives. It's true that we don't always succeed, however. 10,000 years of tears and we still can't prevent autocracies for example. It was a bad idea when it was called the divine right of kings and it's still a bad idea as manifested in King Putin.
Social media can help creatures like King Putin but it also could help to destroy him and his regime.

Almost all school subjects have 'logical progression,' at their heart.
In computing, for example, ADITDEM is key.
Analysis (understand the problem)
Design (plan your solution)
Implementation (create your solution)
Testing (test your solution)
Documentation (document everything you do)
Evaluation (report on the success of your solution and any weaknesses/strengths it has)
Maintenance (Emlploy corrective, adaptive and perfective maintenance)
ADITDEM is cyclical.

We should never accept inadequate funding in education. Education should be free to all from cradle to grave and should have nothing to do with money. I know that's not reality yet but it should always be demanded.

Certainly, women have experienced oppression and so have men. Slavery was not gender, or even age specific. But I don't see any connection between oppression and female identity. Any group can be oppressed to any level and with no time limit, depending on their ability to fight back or have others fight in their name to provide them with more 'equality.'
You could just as easily connect female identity with female warriors of the past. Significant warrior women existed from the early Greek and Germanic tribes, the celts, the vikings etc to women today fighting on the front lines of war.
Plenty of powerful historical women as well, in all fields.
Why would women not choose to identify more with these historically powerful examples of female strength along with political resistance groups like the suffragettes etc. Why would they choose to identify with the oppressions foisted on them by others?

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt says this is the era of stupid and he blames it on social media elevating the political fringes, which thereby bully everyone else into submission. Thus, cancel culture and Trumpism rule. — Joshs

Recently watched an exchange between Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson, titled Enlightenment and the righteous mind. I think it relates to some of the issues raised in the OP. see below:
They discuss the rise in social media and the effects it has had on all of us.
JP suggests that social media creates even more 'factionalisation,' than we have had in the past. He also suggests we need 'truths that unite us,' and he tries to compare some of the aspects of social media with a need to fill 'the god hole in our lives.'
SP talks a lot more about the progress that has been made since the 60's and 70's.
He said 'progressives don't seem to like progress,' as they don't talk about what progress has been made they are too busy arguing about what progress is required. They need to concentrate on talking about was has been achieved and THEN suggest that progress will continue.
JH calls one of the main problems 'moralisation.' He talks about youth not doing the background study and instead, taking their social education from online groups, who often have their own agenda.
It's over 2 hours long but worth a viewing. I watched it twice:

On January 8th, 2022 the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Philadelphia Eagles with a score of 51-26. This is a fact that I am reporting to you. — SwampMan

The point is that your claim is easily checked and verified, we don't have to just accept your word.
Moses parting the red sea is not verifiable, until we have time machines!
In this case, of Hume's premise 4 versus SwampMan, Hume defeated SwampMan.

Nietzsche wrote - 'There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.' That got me thinking about how we often feel or intuit insights about the world before we are able to verbalise them. — Tom Storm

Ok, It would be great to travel from the position you cite here from Nietzche, but I want to highlight the word 'Profound,' again as part of the analysis/critique. It's best to try to move from what I have personally experienced and can exemplify in comparison with your Nietzche quote.

Carl Sagan (in an episode of COSMOS) said, 'the total number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet Earth.' Later I also heard various Cosmologists say 'there are more planets in the universe than there are grains of sand on Earth.'
This is an example of an 'item of knowledge,' that I considered 'profound.'
It was literally a 'life-changing,' moment for me. I was 15 and a bit of a waster, not much interested in school. The next day I went to school I started to listen to my teachers more than I ever had before.
I got more and more enhancements when I started to read Sagan's books. This is where I would say the profound statement I mentioned above became 'connected,' to what I would call 'wisdom,' from Sagan.
The 'planets,' statement also confused me as I felt so insignificant and unimportant once I conceived how vast the Universe was but Sagans words told me that perhaps we are so unique and so individually important to the Universe as we can give it meaning. He was not saying so in an arrogant way but with great humility and care so as not to suggest the Universe had no value or meaning without us in particular and that other species on or/and beyond the Earth could be a fundamental part of the 'meaning' and 'significance,' of the Universe. This to me was 'wisdom' indeed and got me 'hooked.' I have wanted more ever since.

Is Nietzche comparing what I have said above, to the automatic functionality of my body?
My internal systems, that fight hard to keep me maintained and alive. My nervous system, my auto immune system etc etc. If that is what he is suggesting then my response would be that I do marvel at the workings of my physical body but they don't invoke the same wonder for me, as the musings of human consciousness.

Yes, I often fail to find the words to convey my own feelings or intuitive insights about my own existence and life journey to others. I am also too interested in talking compared to listening to others. One of my priorities is to improve this but I suffer the same impatience with others that some have with me as a TPF interloper who does not have the stored and easily accessed information on academic philosophy that many members of this site do have. I think however I can improve my attempts to verbalise my positions by exchanging with others on sites such as TPF. I think that is perhaps a goal that every member/contributor here has.

I hope I can always take the 'fair and balanced,' approach towards others that you have demonstrated towards me since our small earlier spat.

:blush: :up: :clap:

:down:

For whatever reason it seems to me you are not able to communicate as an honest interlocutor. No worries. Bye. — Tom Storm

Oh.. and yes, true enough.. Bye. — Tom Storm

Now that you have thrown your last two toys from your pram, your poor mommy/dada will have to go pick them all up. :naughty: Tom

I don't think there is any single quality that would suffice. 'Wise' is vital but I can suggest many labels that might be applied to those who I personally would 'push forward,' as my best candidates for 'a better future for all of us.'
If I was to offer an ideal recipe as 'the ingredients for making my next great hope.' It might be something like:

Wisdom
Experience
Expertise
Indefatigability (energy levels like those of childhood)
Wonderment
Love of the Universe and everything in it.
Humility
Little or no interest in personal aggrandisement/weath/power/influence

I could add a lot more and would settle for less. Like most people, I have a list of those I admire most.
Probably the most important to me has been Carl Sagan. I would have trusted him to lead any country in the world. The responsibility for who we push forward and what we do is ours.

What do you call that additional quality we need — Agent Smith

Maybe we need to nurture/search for these elusive qualities in ourselves as well as require them in others.

How does one measure an increase in wiseness? — Tom Storm

By personal judgment!

Please try to focus on philosophy and not on imagined slights. — Tom Storm

Please don't attempt to talk down to me, I will respond in kind. Your sentence above just comes across as you throwing your toys out of your pram!

So you are saying wiseness is a problematic term. I think that's sensible — Tom Storm

You seem to be attempting a rather infantile 'carrot and stick,' style exchange with me. A tried old strategy.
It can be very problematic indeed if applied incorrectly to a nefarious influential individual.
Those who labeled and still label Donal Trump wise caused and continue to cause many 'problems.'

Perhaps we're talking past each other — Agent Smith

Misunderstanding between contributors to a particular thread is often more prevalent than understanding is. The typed word is a clumsy tool at best.

All I can say here is that by common sense I mean the ability to detect/extract patterns (from everyday experiences). — Agent Smith

Yeah, I get that, and I fully accept the importance of 'common sense.' An important skill to have and demonstrate but I am simply suggesting that I don't think that's enough to make profound breakthroughs in understanding new knowledge at the current leading edges of Science or Human affairs.

Once one has mastered the skill, all you need to do is apply to so-called intellectual activities known for being tough like STEM. — Agent Smith

To achieve what? A degree.....A PHD......A career? All valuable stuff but only beginnings in any personal quest for profundity.

What does wiser mean? — Tom Storm

Why are you attempting to test my understanding of the term, perhaps it would have been wiser to offer your own. It would have been less petty.

It's a subjective judgment call that can be applied by others to an individual but it has great value when applied by many to a single individual. How warranted it is when it has been applied to someone is open to review and is only confirmed through regular demonstration but it's a measure I personally value over all other measures of an individual when we have 'HUmanS as the measure of all things.'
I can exemplify many 'wise word statements,' both from history and from contemporary sources, if you need me to, but I am sure you have your own.

Do animals experience so-called profundity? — Agent Smith

Well the obvious answer is yes, because humans are a subset of all animals.
Do the 'next most intelligent species to humans on Earth' experience profundity, I have no idea.
I don't think we have got much past very rudimentary communication with other animal species.
Koko the Gorilla was reported as having an IQ between 75 and 90 but I don't think tests were done to demonstrate its ability to categorise knowledge based on how profound it was.
So a chimp may well think that what another chimp showed it how to do was 'deep dude' or profound.
We just can't speak enough chimpaneese yet to know for sure.

These are instances when true common sense bubbles up to the surface and pops into your head. We're (hyper)focused and that means a lot of good stuff escape our notice — Agent Smith

Yeah, I watched the clip and didn't notice the guy in the suit as I was distracted by focussing on the moving white shirts and the ball but science will repeat the experimentation many many many times so sure, you can distract and fool people often but not all the people all the time. I still think your comment of 'all you need is common sense,' is misleading as it seemed 'common sense' to me to follow the benign instructions at the beginning of your clip and follow that 'pattern' as it unfolded. If I had put my 'i bet there is a trick to this somewhere,' hat on then I would have used a more wide vision stance and not trusted my 'common sense.' Perhaps we just differ on what encompasses the term 'common sense.'

We have no current control over extinction via natural disasters such as a big rock from space or the Yellowstone caldera erupting and causing massive, very fast, climate change. There is always a chance of survivors but it's also possible that only microbial-sized organic material would survive depending on how big the rock is or how bad the climate gets, and the whole, evolution/natural selection process could go back to near to the beginning of that process. I think it was mostly the smallest animals that survived that which killed the dinosaurs, along with some avian and aquatic species.
If we stay in this single planet then we are simply easier to eradicate. The more we are spread out in the Universe the better our chances of survival. Taking the very long-term view would suggest becoming interplanetary or even better, interstellar is prudent.

Those with enough wealth/power/influence to wrangle a ticket out of here, or those with enough wisdom to collaborate with the planet as well as each other? I know which one I’d vote for... — Possibility

I prefer that staying on or leaving the Earth becomes a choice for everyone regardless of wealth/power/influence. If you are talking about 'an impending planetary doom' scenario where Earthlings are all scrambling to leave then yeah, that will always be horrific. Despite such horror, I am hoping for a distant future situation whereby the destruction of the Earth would not mean the end of our species. I totally agree with you that we must stop soiling our own nest or we add to the chances of our extinction but even if we achieved that we still face many other dangers.

How do you measure deep? — Jackson

My personal answer would be by how much the posit challenges my current conclusions.

To be honest, I think this interplanetary pursuit must take a back seat to understanding how we can collaborate with the ecosystem we have, rather than mould/affect it in pursuit of our own short-sighted demands - otherwise we’re no better than locusts moving on to strip another location of its resources. That’s my two cents, anyway. — Possibility

Well, such 'warning bells' of caution are well made.
I think we must globally unite, no more countries, no currencies, no rich, no imbalances of power or cults of personality/celebrity. I am just struggling a little as to how I can best go about making all that happen......now!.....that's all.
I don't advocate for putting interplanetary existence on the back seat. I want to supercharge the efforts towards it but I also want to supercharge all efforts towards a far better stewardship of Earth.
I think we must do both or else.........I do think we may go the way of the Dino's.

In my humble opinion, I've never asked any deep questions; so I wouldn't know what they are first-hand. However, I do recall reading up on how some queries get to the heart of an issue (that's my definition of a deep question). — Agent Smith

Is this somewhere between false modesty and wordplay? If you contribute to conversations such as 'why are we?' and 'where did the Universe come from?' and god? then you are asking deep questions.
I won't copy all your thread titles here and highlight those that, I think, qualifies as a 'deep question,' but I think they are good examples amongst them.

I listened to a Sam Harris (atheist, neuroscientist) lecture last night as I dozed off. He said one word that satisfies my definition of profundity and that word was "structural". Every issue seems to possess a form that's both generalizable but also possessed of features unique to it. This is clichéd now but since I came to know of it, it's always been at the back of my mind, buried somewhere in my subconscious or something like that. — Agent Smith

A nice little insight into your personal musings Agent Smith. Good stuff!

Pattern recognition is all there is to intelligence/wisdom: there's no difference between a casanova grasping how to bed women and a physicist sussing out a formula that describes some phenomenon s/he's investigating - both require you to notice patterns (in women and in nature, respectively). — Agent Smith

But computers are very good at pattern matching, more efficient and faster than us at it but theystill can't think like we can......yet!
Any time I have tried to predict what a woman will do next based on her pattern of previous behavior, I have been often, dead wrong. I don't think the behavior of most individuals is as predictable as you suggest, especially if you rely solely on matching previous patterns of behavior. It would certainly be very unwise to ignore previous patterns of behavior but also unwise to use it as your only driver for reactive decision making.
I think it's the same at the current boundaries of Science, when it comes to such as quantum fluctuations, for example. Known particulate patterns of behavior don't seem to apply and there seems to be very little available that can be used as a reliable predictive tool.

That's all for now! I've run out of steam. — Agent Smith

I'm sure that a water refill and a reheat will replenish your 'puff.'

Err, it's not all about you... I was writing about 'the scenario' you dramatised — Tom Storm

This seems to be setting up a scenario — Tom Storm

Well, I was the one who was 'setting up the scenario,' so who else are you suggesting is 'hand wringing,' if not me?

In essence we hold different views about nomenclature and approach. I think it is fair to ask questions about our systems of value, so enjoy... Bear in mind that for many people it does end up in analysis paralysis and a whole lot of navel gazing foolery that is of little use to anyone. — Tom Storm

Differences in nomenclature and approach are very useful for the sake of comparison and debate.
Which combination/choice of nomenclature and approach causes the most useful and beneficial results is for the judgment of others, sometimes this can be as low a level of importance as personal taste.
Yes, it is not only fair but essential to ask questions about value systems.
I personally do enjoy doing so. I rarely experience analysis paralysis but like everyone else, I do struggle with many concepts and posits. 'Navel gazing foolery that is of little use to anyone,' is one of those phrases which is easily thrown directly back at the source who clarion calls the danger of such. We can all be wrong, the important 'value' for me is to encourage all to try to become wiser without suggesting so in an arrogant or deprecative way. and to prioritise that goal, more than becoming personally richer, more famous or more powerful or too focussed on matters regarding your own ego.

I feel like the option is always there for me to sink into the joy of my current situation, and ask no more questions in this march towards an inevitable death. And I’ve done that for a time, afraid to ask for more in case the asking risked what I already had. — Possibility

I sooooo recognise this, first as a 'now and then' recurrence in myself and in almost all of my friends.
I love the 'ask for more' bit firstly in the Dickensian tradition of the hungry Oliver and in the more humorous vein of 'who are we asking?'

But I’m done living in fear — Possibility

:strong: :clap: :clap:

I have found that seeking wisdom puts all these other pursuits into perspective: I am conscious that pursuing family/interconnectedness masks a yearning for ‘me’ time, focusing on wealth ignores a craving for the simple things in life, and seeking power disguises a longing for interconnectedness. — Possibility

Yep, I think I see myself somewhere in this crowd too.

Maslow said ‘you will either step forward into growth or backward into safety’ - it seems the majority of existence will choose safety when it comes down to it, and that can keep them busy enough to maintain, in itself — Possibility

Pursuit of profundity has risk, sometimes serious risk, but I so agree with this. If we as a species do not even achieve the ability for some of us to exist beyond this planetary nest then I dont think we can claim to have done so much better than the dinosaurs did. Ok, we moulded/affected the planet much more than they did but we have no more protection from extinction than they did, and we never will have unless we become at least an interplanetary species. We should just have stayed in the caves and forests and enjoyed the pretty flora and treated any pesky philosophers and scientists amongst us as dangerous enemies that must be eliminated. We could always excuse ourselves by claiming but that's what our god(s) want. I will stop this line now in-case I enter rant mode. :smile:

I think there are also many who, in prioritising profundity, have settled for the safety of simply being the smartest person in the room — Possibility

Well, I do prioritise it but others regularly demonstrate to me the folly of ever assuming you are the smartest person in the room. Even forms of intelligence and specialisation of field are quite myriad.
Someone who seems pretty vacant on one topic may be almost an expert at something I know little about.

Which leads me to ask: when you say that a person has family/love/power/wealth/fame, how are you making that assessment? Is it through self-comparison, part of their own claims, or is there some objective status they’ve attained? — Possibility

There is such a lot of historical evidence in this area. All powerful tyrants/kings/autocrats fall eventually and their legacy to me, seems much heavier on the negative rather than the positive from Alexander (the scumbag IMO) (the great) through to other (IMO scumbags) such as Napolean, Hitler, Stalin etc, etc, to the current day Putin's and Trumps. How many wealthy, powerful people from politicians to pop stars to playrights live what seem to me quite horrible lives and die way before they naturally should have. Without wisdom, family/love/power/wealth/fame seem to fail miserably. That is another reason why I prioritise it so highly.

But the process of asking does keep bringing us back to our actual interaction with the world - which is sometimes neglected in this pursuit of profundity. Wisdom is more about the accurate application of understanding in relation to the world, than simply possessing knowledge. — Possibility

Again, very good commentary! In my opinion.

Well, now that you mention it, knowledge is a struggle and the educational system we have at the moment is a huge waste of time for the simple reason that for a decent life, all one needs is common sense — Agent Smith

I think your true position here runs far deeper than you reveal but I will spare you any amateur attempt at psychoanalysis on my part. Do you think you could live by common sense alone? The 'simple' life is a 'happy,' life? Could you succeed in training your brain not to present/manifest the 'deep questions' anymore or will you always be a 'knowledge junkie,' all your life? I think I will, I don't think I could kick that particular habit. Perhaps we need to approach the trauma that can come with the 'quest for enlightenment or profundity,' in ways that might reduce its potential sting. Do you think the simple admission and expectation and self-recognition that the quest has many pitfalls and you will fall into some of them makes it easier to cope when 'shit happens?' but the wonderful quest remains.
I think I do something like that even though I am cringing at the Arthurian imagery running through my head as I type this.

Knowing the equations for conic sections or the chemical formula of turpentine or the staple diet of the French, most of the stuff you learn in school, is perhaps meant to hone this life skill but it's a rather convoluted and painful way of doing so. I've seen people with no formal education doing better than those with. Where did we go wrong? — Agent Smith

:lol: Yeah, I know what you mean. As a teacher, I saw so many flaws in established curricula and I do see the sense in a more personalised, interest-driven curriculum. This may actually happen in the future when education is home-based and completely electronic. The traditional school system is becoming more and more challenged by technology. What do you mean by the words 'doing better.' I find that very hard to judge on a case-by-case basis. I have met individuals who seem to be living a very happy life and then find out that the whole thing was a complete charade and they were actually quite unhappy people. I am tempted to ask you 'what do you want' Agent Smith?

This seems to be setting up a scenario drenched in unnecessary moral rumination and hand-wringing. — Tom Storm

Perhaps it's a natural initial reaction to suspect the intentions of strangers. I am certainly engaging in moral rumination, your opinion that its unnecessary is of course, subjective. Your suggestion, that I maybe 'hand-wringing,' (perhaps you also see a manifest image of me, in your head, maniacally laughing!) is a bit more malevolent and quite a jump, a bit over the top Tom.

Most people live and die and do not require the consolations of philosophy or deep dives into ethical concerns. In life, they do what they can - they love, they raise children and maybe even take care of some friends/neighbors along the way. They have meaningful relationships with others, do a job they enjoy and generally stay out of other people's business. Job done. I've known many of these people and they tend to die happy and leave others who regret their death. — Tom Storm

I think you 'play down' 'most people,' by what you type here. I don't think you do so deliberately but I think you misrepresent them. Most people I have met or observed (perhaps a similar number to you,) all have their favourite 'philosophical' statements or a 'personal code,' or 'list of motivations,' that they follow and live by. I agree with all the activities you mention above but I think that people in general, muse about life the Universe and everything more that you suggest above. Even those who seem 'pretty vacant,' can often surprise you with a single sentence or two when their mask or their various protective, well-practiced role play, slips a little. I am not so sure about your last sentence above.
I agree about the regret/mourning of others but I have watched a 'fair amount,' of YouTube material now on those who study end of life, and Neuropsychiatry and Neurophysiology. I have found the material by Doctor Peter Fenwick and Doctor Susan Blackmore informative. I think Fenwick holds that consciousness may exist beyond the brain, which I don't subscribe to, but his studies of death and n.d.e's etc are based on Science and not supernatural BS. Based on what I have viewed, I think death is not studied enough and people remain too ignorant and afraid of the processes involved.


We need to stop treating death as such a 'no go subject.'

I think the questions you raise about asking someone 'who are you?' and 'what do you want,' are fair.

The first question assumes that people think of themselves in a such a way that allows them to describe their life in sound bites. People tend to feel who they are, they don't communicate it. — Tom Storm

You also engage in assumption here. You assume that people cannot communicate to others regarding who they are, you assume they can only 'feel' who they are. I disagree. They may use a sound bit style if they wish but I still think asking yourself these two questions and making a serious attempt to answer them can reveal a great deal about yourself to yourself. Choosing to share your findings with others or answering the two questions 'in public,' remains a personal choice.

The second question 'what do you want?' is equally stilted. Just what are you asking? Again the question feels like it's trying to narrow the range of human experience into a constricted template that doesn't fit a life lived. Again, I am not sure what you are asking. What does 'want' mean or refer to? — Tom Storm

Perhaps the question asks you to be honest with yourself. Encouragement not to be afraid of your most base thoughts. Jordan Peterson places himself in the position of a holocaust camp guard during WW2 and tries to analyse his own personal motivations if put in such a situation. A person might admit to themselves that they want to be rich and marry a catwalk queen. Perhaps if they admit this and speak to their friends about it, they might get more information about the possible downfalls involved in such pursuits.

I do admit that such questions' in the raw,' can be dangerous for some, without professional support.
If their personal answers are honest and sincere but would be judged by most as pure evil. Is it better to expose such to yourself or do your best to subdue and risk losing control over such thoughts? I don't have the psychiatric qualifications to know for sure. What do you think?

Yes. I think it happens a lot, actually — Tom Storm

Any more detail? Can 'I did it my way,' ever be the madman's final insult, which is more like an evil 'so f*** all of you,' I don't care how many died because I did it my way?
The person who gave up all they had, lived very basically, spent their lives helping the poor and hungry of the world? Can they truly die happy without concern about what's still left to do and whether or not there is someone who can/will take their place?

I hope you are correct Tom and you see these two deathbed exclamations as positives, stated by someone who had a fulfilled and happy life, which benefitted the vast majority of people that they encountered and not the more negative suggestions I made above. I think it's vital that we all take responsibility to try to help ensure that as many people as possible can live such lives. Perhaps such as the antinatalists will then fade away forever, the more we can exemplify such individual fulfilled lives.

Unanswerable - those questions are stilted and already loaded with assumptions — Tom Storm

Again, a little more detail might allow me to attempt a fruitful response.

2. Mental (your body brain matures, your IQ and EQ improves, you become an adult who can think for him/herself). For animals, this coincides with physical birth; if you'll take the time to notice, animals can walk, even run, feed, etc. within minutes after birth). — Agent Smith

Ok, I understand what you have typed but I don't personally see much value in the 'twice born' description you offer.

Question is, should Spock be a leader or a member of a team? — Agent Smith

In the OP I asked the question, 'Are you generally mad/bad/sad/indifferent/confused/scared/stable/self-assured/profound?'

The Spock character was always portrayed as emotionally indifferent, very stable and very self-assured, yet every time he was in full command and he tried to make all decisions based on pure logic, he fails. The writers made sure he failed. I greatly value logic but I also value instinct, intuition, and emotion as the writers of Star Trek do.

In your own pursuit of profundity/knowledge, have you experienced more threat from madness/badness/sadness etc than you have made gains in stability/confidence/pleasure etc?
Do you think the personal struggle for what you would consider personal enlightenment is worth it compared to the proposed 'bliss of ignorance?'
I have often thought Jordan Peterson for example, struggles with his personal sanity and that this might be due to his wish to and his approach towards tackling 'the big questions.'

I think you and I have a different understanding of what self-awareness is — T Clark

I agree.

I also get 'frustrated,' because my current answers seem flawed to me.
I will try to 'word' them here but I can feel the frustration rise as I try to find the words I want/need to use.
How can I judge my own level of honesty and sincerity as I attempt to type my answers?

Who am I:
Overwhelmed and quite scared when others rely on me/need me.
Confident and self-assured but not always.
A lifelong learner but an armchair warrior, not the activist I feel I should be.
Very empathetic towards most but don't carry the load as well as I would like to.
Very vengeful in my thoughts towards those who abuse what I perceive as innocents.
My intentions towards others are honorable.
I advocate the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

I could go on but I always end up with a list that is too long, too complex, requires revision and seems to contradict in parts. But I have used these two questions since I first heard them used as a 'summary of self.'

What do I want:
To take the basic means of survival for granted.
To be part of the solution not part of the problem.

I can go on with this list as well but I can start to sound a bit messianic if I do and I can start to sound like someone looking for something to sacrifice themselves to.
So I get frustrated and think 'rip it up and start again.'

I ask myself these questions and get frustrated — Yohan

This seems good to me. Perhaps that's why I seek more wisdom by exchanging thinking on such forums as TPF. Personal psychotherapy can take many interesting forms. Who/why/what am I and what do I want and why do I want it? are I am sure, the basic questions asked by all philosophers from Egypt and Greece through to now.
I find that, despite the frustration, asking and answering the two questions I mentioned, in particular, have been for me, very beneficial. Overall, I currently quite like me, which is a good thing, as I am with me all of the time.

The opening post was very scattershot, all over the place. Lots of seemingly unrelated questions. So I'll just pick the one I'm interested in answering — T Clark

Offering a little order to a perceived initial chaos, is beneficial to all readers, I'm sure.

My goal is self-awareness. — T Clark

But to what depth/breadth/length? Awareness of self may first happen in the womb, obviously that is not what you are referring to so which word(s) would more accurately describe your goal.

I primarily do it through intellectual contemplation. Thinking. Thinking is what I do and have always done. — T Clark

By myself, whilst staring at my large print of the hubble deepest field image or before I fall asleep etc and during many other 'time slices,' I do the same and I would call these 'time slices,' very 'happy,' not 'hippy happy,' but 'happy,' I ponder all of the recent sensory info I have taken in and try to 'learn,' or/and confirm/edit/replace previous/current viewpoints. But I am interested on how others prioritise what you term 'intellectual contemplation,' when compared to but not completely exclusive of love/family relationships/social status/wealth/power and influence/possesions etc.

Now I think recreationally here on the forum. For me, that is what philosophy is - a path, not the only path, to self-awareness. — T Clark

Do you see your 'intellectual contemplations' as 'recreational,' then? Is that its priority level for you?
I know you typed 'here on the forum.' Does that mean that you assign much more personal importance to your intellectual contemplations, outside the boundaries of TPF?
Your use of 'self-awareness' here is too 'surface,' for me.

Lol you have misinterpreted my intentions again. I don't want to dismiss your thread. I like the topic — Yohan

If that's the case then, Sorry Yohan! I'm sure you agree, the best solution to misinterpretation is further explanation and clarification.

I think that my pursuit of profundity/wisdom is a choice I make to forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die. — Possibility

When you say 'choice I make.' Could you have chosen otherwise or was the compulsion too strong to pursue wisdom? I think I NEED to pursue such to give meaning and purpose to my life. Is that what you mean by 'forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die.' Do you think others can be equally satisfied by prioritising family/love/power/wealth and possessions/fame over seeking profundity?
I know that's a very subjective question but I have never been convinced by anyone who I would say has one or more of the list I suggest above and claims to be 'content.' I could list my reasons for that opinion but I am more interested in the opinions of others as to what they think could make them more or as content as the pursuit of new knowledge/wisdom/profundity.

I also think that if we believe we can answer ‘who are you?’ and ‘what do you want?’ with any certainty, then we’re setting ourselves up for a rude shock at some point down the track. From the moment we make such definitive statements about ourselves, the truth of them has already altered to some extent — Possibility

There certainly is risk involved in posing the two questions at yourself constantly, especially if your answers don't self-satisfy. You risk mental instability I think but the two questions seem so vital to me.
I have never achieved certainty when trying to answer them for myself but I have been able (so far) to use them as 'personal positive measures of meaning/purpose,' in my life.

But I think it’s possible to reach the end of our life satisfied with its uniqueness and fullness, and whether anyone agrees with us is out of our hands, and no longer our concern. — Possibility

A good comment. :smile:

Actually I doubt it's done on purpose, so I think that covers all your questions. — Yohan

Ok, but no, I don't think that covers all my questions at all, but if you think what you have typed via Dan Dennet closes the thread for you then, fair enough.

I think it's a play on "Deepak" and "deep" — Yohan

No, I don't think it's anything to do with Deepak Chopra.

According to: https://www.edinburghskeptics.co.uk/skepdayJan/Deepity

The term was "First coined by Miriam Weizenbaum, the daughter of a friend of American philosopher Daniel Dennett."

I meant that a lot of what goes on in philosophy here might be using words or concepts out of context to generate pseudo-profound questions or answers. — Yohan

Ok, but you use the words 'might be,' so you must have an opinion about their reasoning?
Are the individuals you are typing about just malcontents?
Do you think it's more sinister than that and they have their own personal agenda or a group agenda?
Do you think they deliberately quote words or concepts out of context as part of an overall plan?
Why would some individuals HERE on THIS FORUM want to 'generate pseudo-profound questions or answers?' Are some of them trying to recruit towards a cause?