Let's hack the simulation and break out into base reality.

Could we say that in terms of art, beauty is a depiction of the process of learning?

taking the ultra deterministic approach I see.

I'm with you Leo, and like I said I seek more sustainable energy regardless of whether or not we are capable of of mitigating climate issues, and so yes I generally speak for that cause.
However at the same time I am considering possibilities here, and while I cannot say that the evidence I have researched or heard is 100% foolproof and reputable, I have to consider that it is in order to attempt to survive and keep my family and my children alive should things go the way many people have publicly predicted.

Or am I just over reacting?
I don't think so.

The truth about my intentions here is that I am not actually trying to have anyone convince me otherwise. As far as debate is concerned, there is none really to be had with me because I have already decided.

More so I am presenting these thoughts to this group of people in hopes that they begin to consider this line of thinking.
Because I like your minds here. So I offer my understandings.

...or the gun conundrum.
If you have a gun you prolong their existence.
If you don't have a gun you risk your protection.
So you buy a gun.

see the problem for me with this line of thought is this, and I kind of already said it:
If global warming is real, and we are going to eperience fallout as a result, it would be wise to accomodate the possibility.
If it is fake, and one accommodates the possibility, then what is actually lost other than a possible relocation and perhaps a stock pile of water and weapons?

If you don't prepare for it, that would be similar to refusing to wear safety goggles because you feel confident, even though there is a chance that shrapnel could blind you at a moment's notice.

Personally... I wear safety goggles.

So some of us can agree that a shift would help the environment, but at the cost of interfering with economics that don't want to budge, and that there is a chance that in our lifetime or the lifetime after us we may experience fallout as a result.
And so the smart thing to do would be to prepare similarly to how Crank mentioned on the chance that there is at least a possibility.

So let's assume climate change and global warming are just a big scam for people to make money off of the word, that there is no threat, and that it is all hubbub.
Wouldn't it still be more efficient in terms of energy consumption and land preservation to switch to a more sustainable energy source than sucking huge quantities of the earth out of the ground, refining it in a process that creates non consumable waste, and dissipating it into thin air?

I have heard of billionares building bunkers, but I am not sure how well that works for climate change to be honest. It could survive massive Nuclear fallout, but I don't see how someone could survive extreme heat unless they had some kond of revolutionary air conditioning on their own power source.
So yeah I guess that may be possible, but you would need some engineering that I'm not quite sure I am qualified to do without a huge wad of cash to appoint others.

In other words we're ducked.
I think.

So I guess we just accept that if the Earth becomes 3-4° warmer we will start seeing incredible surges of extreme weather that will kill many people and ecosystems and force mass migration of humans from refuge to refuge clawing tooth and nail with one another for survival?
And then at 5° we all just literally die?

Or I mean is that fake news?

You guys are the most logical people I know. How do I survive if shtf?

So yeah probably, but we don't know exactly how it's gonna play out.
I'm just thinking like... Should I build a bunker or what?

Well I guess it was a decent run everybody. Thanks for playing.

Too touchy of a subject. This is why I have a handle and not a name. Sure the ideas have been public online, but not public in a sense of published articles for everyone. In other words, no, I'm not going to cite anarchists. Sorry. I'm sure there is a website full of them.

Nope.

apparently you don't. No offense.

Sorry I can't help you there. Not my place to share people's business in that way. I'm just saying I have had multiple conversations with people who say this. Pretty much most of my life to be honest. Ask people who don't vote why they don't vote.

I mean... Not without quoting people who have said it. Lol

Maybe i dont understand what you are referring to.

So here is why I bring this up...

Many people of the new generation are under the impression that we should ignore election altogether. They all just want to say "Duck the government altogether. I don't support it, so I'm just not going to participate at all."

This seems to be an Anarchic principle. Many times people who propose this will even state that they advocate Anarchy in the face of our current government because they feel that they should be completely free and devoid of leadership or laws.

Like we have said.. In principle it would be great, so long as people took to it with specific ideals that make the principle work, but it is the same with any government or lack there of, eventually these ideals are exploited.

My problem is that people don't realize this. It isn't "no government" that we should be considering. It's "new government" or "new universal perspective" or a combination of those that we need to consider. We are stuck in a loop, and we all know what is going to happen once we hit the peak of that loop. It's history. So how do we create something that will reset the course of history without completely self destructing? What is the way to have a smooth transition from one form of government to another? What is a new idea that can be implimented for a more fair society? We have already tried out a handful of different governments and they all seem to result in the same thing no matter what we do.

Leo I actually agree with you a lot. I have been trying to dictate how to remove parts of fear from human consciousness but alas I have only a few ideas on ways to do it and I don't know how to implement them at all.

Dude I'm not here to answer pop quiz questions. If you have a point, make it. If you have a question for me, ask. If you want a definition... Google it.

Love to you internet friend, but alas I am not a scholar. So I don't know the answer to your question.

Is anyone making an anti asshole serum? It's honestly the only solution I can think of. Psychedelics made me want to be less of an asshole. Think there's anything to that? What if they are administered in professional therapy environments? Perhaps I am out of line here for suggesting it, but realistically I have personally witnessed an overwhelming desire to strive for Homosapien harmony as a result of taking them. I can only imagine how mich more useful of tools they could have been if I wasn't just taking them recreationally, and instead took them with prescription and guidance.

I'm just gonna ramble sometimes everybody. If it isn't interesting or intelligent enough for ya then oh well.

See... That's my line of thought as well.

I'm still not really convinced that Anarchy could ever last. Perhaps people could be self governed if they didn't have to speak with each other at all?

I'm under the impression that the first human conversation was likely an argument, and that an argument will probably be our last. Ha.

Your second part sort of fits the second part of the op. I felt like the concepts were related, but for some reason I can't seem to quite put government and this "fear/hatred" concept that we have described together. I feel like we basically agree on the problem, and to be honest it seems pretty obvious, but I don't see a solution.

I'm glad someone is concerned and making an effort to form solutions.

Is anyone else nervous about society right now? I'm nervous. I haven't been this nervous in a while. Since the twin towers fell. But I think I might be even more nervous now than I was then because it feels like America is starting to war with it'self and it's neighbors and it's planet with no concern for ethics what so ever.

Encouraging the masses is the topic at hand. Personally I don't care how I appeal to academics. They aren't the majority. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I am merely a conduit for my perceptions. If the words aren't impressive to academics, then so be it.

:victory: :blush:

Is there a way we can make philosophy into a friendlier endeavour for the average guy?



Philosophy and critical thinking shouldn't be things someone either "has or doesn't have." We should all be equipped to learning and studying, and if it were more enjoyable for the lot of humanity, perhaps we would reach conclusions more quickly and thoroughly.

I am going to go from personal experience and say that I for one am somewhat intimidated by some philosophers and deep thinkers because I know that they have more knowledge on many subjects than I do. Perhaps this is silly, but alas let us not forget that the limbic system is in high demand. For someone who does not engage in deep or critical thinking on a regular basis, I can only imagine that they would be even more intimidated than I am considering their limited association with the process, and so my suggestion to limit this particular issue is simple... When you can... Dumb it down.
I know, I know, we have spent gobs of money buying the ability to create million dollar sentences, and while they are necessary in times in order to maintain specific clarity, they don't captivate society in a broad sense. If you can explain something in vast and great detail, so too should you have the ambition to reduce it to it's utmost simplicity. Of course this is not always easy.

I'm sure there are more ways to consider this question as well.

How else could you explain 1/3 = 0.33reapeating if not with infinity?

I'm not interested in this discussion with you anymore because disrespect is not debate.

You are along the same lines of refusing to redefine because of your current understanding of the word, and how much you don't like it S...

Or are you more interested in the wall between the two that has already existed for thousands of years? People standing on either side of a line shouting at each other. This is a worldwide epidemic that creates war and tragedy. How is that conducive to the longevity of the species?

To formulate a ground breaking comprimise between two beliefs you have to think completely out of the box and bring your information back to the parties who fight.

As an atheist, I care more about everything in existence than God.

Do you see how if the definition of God encompasses another definition there can be a bridge built between the people who care about the "Magik Sky Person" known as "God" and the people who care about everything in existence?

Number of people who sell hats<Number of people who inqure about God.

That's exactly what you do every time you learn something. You are a part of the existence of reality. Your reach on reality is anyone or anything you communicate with. This process is called evolution.

Interesting observations. I would agree we are here to observe and learn, though regardless of the meanings of existence I am happy to witness it. Especially considering the life I am experiencing now is the only one I can contest to ever experiencing up to this point.

No body cares about people wearing hats. People care about God.

Both simultaneously

I would say that God is in the material and out of it at the same time. (Any potential)

I like the separation of the two for sure. It's at least somewhat along the lines of my understanding.