The concept of Death is the most beautiful gift humans have.

note: NO explanation forthcoming just take it as a serious and sincere statement.

I do actually have a definition of god though. I think most other people would call it 'me' though and dismiss themselves as ever inhabiting even an iota of godhood.

I'm not happy to say I am god but I am aware of its truth nevertheless.

Again, this depends on what is meant by 'God'. Define it and it is possible. Don't define it and it is meaningless.

It really is that simply (or complex).

I wasn’t referring to any particular institution. I was stating that ‘religions’ are about reinforcing our sense of existence - meaning ‘weltanschauung’ or ‘axis mundi’.

In such a sense we’re all religious.

You guys use the term "religion" as if describes this single monolithic entity, as if Talmudic analysis is at all like Taoism. The same can be said of "philosophy," as if all it seeks the same thing. — Hanover

Trust me I don’t.

I king did this experiment already. He locked a child in a room and it had no contact with any human. The child couldn't talk or walk. It was nothing, just a vegetable.

I'm too 'hungry' to waste it most of the time :D

I don't think you understand my contention. — Caldwell

I don't think you understand the point of what Husserl was trying to achieve (that is a SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS). He says so plain and clear. If you think it is 'ironic' that cognitive neuroscience makes use of his work/ideas you missed that the whole point of his endeavor was to aid scientific research into consciousness.

The real object is in fact an idealization, so they say. And I think objectivity in this sense doesn't fit with Husserl's explanation of spatial objects. Because as much as he or any other phenomenologist wants to make his narrative as objective as possible, he inadvertently implicates his own explanation, thereby exposing his own idealization of the phenomenon. They should not have started with the denial of objects in itself and the denial of access to other minds. They should have, for all intents and purposes, admitted that the "kinaesthetics sensation of our voluntary movement" is indeed physical and material, therefore, no matter how much we call it idealization, we are inextricably made of matter. — Caldwell

Husserl doesn't 'deny' any such thing. Husserl cares about the experience of some 'object' as an experience of some 'object'. If I see a table it doesn't matter if it is there or not for the purposes of looking at conscious experience. If I 'experience' a table I cannot deny that I experience a table. The 'existence' of the table is not important other than as an item of cognition.

He wasn't interested in dualistic arguments only to frame phenomenology as a Science of Consciousness. There is no attempt to make any narrative objective because that isn't anything like what Husserl had in mind. He states this is various ways multiple times (probably because people didn't get it at first) which led to a lot of confusion.

Consciousness is like Gravity. We know it yet when we get down to the barebones we're clueless. It is okay to a low resolution understanding of something.

The phenomenological perspective seems like the most constructive way to look at consciousness imo as it does away with dualism (or rather 'brackets' it out) rather than get sidetracked with this extrinsic question. All I see that has come from dualistic posturing is the empty idea of panpsychism (empty because it doesn't really say anything much other than 'we don't know!').

The point being we understand well enough what happens when we jump just as we understand well enough what being conscious means. Anything beyond this is not really in our scope yet so it's mostly guesswork until better concepts and experience comes along.

We're quite capable of viewing the brain and we're gaining a better understanding of how items like awareness and authorship function via our neural networks.

ANYTHING else on this subject is more about constructing different lingual terms to frame and segment the perceived problem and/or blind speculation where wishful thinking often dooms sensible ideas thoughts on the matter.

It's more that people are taught to look at the future negatively and critically. Being optimistic sounds too much as being care free and not being worried about future. It isn't politically correct. — ssu

I don't think they're 'taught' this exactly. It is just fashionable to be moody most of the time. Whilst negative nobodies writhe in despair the rest get to work. It's been like that for a long time it's just that now the nobodies have a megaphone created by those they holler at sadistically.

Enough people grow up to become children again thankfully :)

I agree with you that climate pessimism makes more sense than climate optimism. — Bitter Crank

One without the other is stupidity. I'm a self confessed pessimist. Because of my pessimism I am always rewarded with reasons to be optimistic because nothing is ever as bad as I imagined it would be. Wallowing in pessimism, and/or raging about it, is the kind of thing I spit on though ;)

It's still the minimum common basis of the notion of the Creator. — PoeticUniverse

It's not 'minimum' it's meaningless and empty. I cannot 'disprove' something that has no substance or bounds within experience.

OR I can simply say that I create things therefore I am a God. I'm okay with that and don't require that anyone (dis)prove my existence.

Because you say so or because you've written a poem about it you wish to share? :D

Seriously, No. It's not enough to say something like "Him the be ending up the start" and say that suffices as a coherent remark.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Because no one can define 'God'. I've yet here a coherent expression of what anyone means when they say 'God'. People generally don't know what they mean when they speak though so it's not entirely surprising.

Taking the 200,000 number as an exact date for behaviorally modern humans' emergence (for the sake of simplicity), and then reminding ourselves that writing wasn't invented until roughly 5,000 years ago (3,200 BC), it leads to a question: what was happening during those 195 thousand years of our existence? What were we thinking? — Xtrix

It's all surmise. But we know these people buried their dead, created cave art, and had complex tools. — Xtrix

More like 70,000 years. From the hard evidence we currently have. Maybe 200,000 but we don't know for sure if they were 'the same'.

All humans have a cosmological stance. We have a 'foundation' upon which we build. A devout religious person cannot simply 'give up' believing in what they believe in regardless of the evidence put before them no more than a scientist would disregard scientific evidence.

Note: NO to arguments that 'science' trumps 'belief' in this respect. To 'disregard' your cosmological perspective would mean for your entire sense of reality to collapse.

The commonality is the requirement for a sense of world (weltanschauung), axis mundi or, simply put, an anchor by which we can feel grounded. No anchor, no reality and no sense of life.

The very terms 'religion,' 'science' and 'philosophy' are expressions of our understanding that there are different means to approach different explorations. The confusion comes when we use one to explore the other as if it has priority over it. We do not tend to pray for answers to questions about physics nor do we calculate the 'meaning' of life in a physics-based formula. When we ask about the best course of action for a moral issue we don't hold purely to cold logic or measure the weight of good vs bad like a scientist.

The common feature of all of these is that they necessarily operate within a community of humans and therefore seem to express something about what humans are/do.

The heart of the religious questioning (in my mind) is that of ontology. Religion is more about reinforcing the foundations of our cosmological view, science is more about exploring it and philosophy is about questioning it. All approaches are void without the others.

What should I do? — Shawn

Aim - Move - Fail - Glory - Repeat

Beauty outstretches logic.

As a stoic — Shawn

Still lost I take it? I didn't need to read further.

Look my fellow human. This is pointless. Passivity will just instill more and more self disgust. Step up and away. Stillness is death in the manner you're framing it. Why you want death is beyond me. Seems like a strange choice given the godhood you inhabit as a human.

Yeah, it's basically just nonsense.

In terms of psychometrics the most solid grounding is 'g' and The Big Five. EQ is just some attempt to smuggle in a new term when it is already covered under The Big Five.

I think we see a lot of attempts to discredit this more standard 'model' of personality because it is vague enough to warrant a good degree of speculation. It is a pretty well established foundation though BUT is often misapplied to individual cases when in reality such self analysis tests only really give a decent broad picture of the human personality spectrum.

It's normal to be drawn to that which is like you. But it's very stigmatized to express that now. — Lil

With a slight change to "It's optimal to be directed to that which you like, but it's stigmatized to express this."

That just about sums up all of humanity's problems throughout (pre)history. The 'modern' era (ie. last several millennia) has been punctuated by how this is being slowly realised and ignored with a fanatical fastidiousness.

And here's the US per capita carbon dioxide emissions. It's already happening in the US and Europe, the decrease of per capita emissions. India and China are really what we the World should focus on. — ssu

China and India both have nearly x5 the population of the US. Yet China has under twice the amount of emissions as the US whilst India produces less than half that that the US does.

Out of the top 20 Indonesia, India and Brasil are extremely low per capita. The US is in no position to pat themselves on the back or point the finger at India or China. Such a thing is ridiculous as China is around on par with the UK AND has the ability to make sweeping changes overnight due to their authoritarian regime.

India are not major contributors to the problem yet.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-urges-g20-nations-to-bring-down-per-capita-emissions-by-30-101627152729395.html

Carbon Footprint per capita (I wasn't talking money).

So would bullying China then help more? I doubt it, especially when the country is suffering from blackouts. — ssu

I think you'll find in terms of poverty China and India are miles apart. The US, Europe, China and Australia cannot be 'bullied' as they are doing pretty damn well. China, US and Australia have to step up, and Europe needs to push harder too.

In India 1 million die a year of starvation related causes (prior to pandemic). MANY more are in extreme poverty now than before. Per capita India is nothing. Per Capita the US is WAY ahead of China.

These may be old but hey paint a picture: https://www.statista.com/statistics/270508/co2-emissions-per-capita-by-country/

Canada and Russia is understandable to a degree due to weather. Other high output have tiny populations, but can do much more.

I completely agree with you then, ideally finite fossil fuels that are still left, should be rationed wisely to transition to a post-fossil fuel economy. — ChatteringMonkey

But we cannot expect countries like India to stop using coal (nor will they). This is the big problem.

Sure we probably could do it eventually, colonize Mars, but at what cost right? What's the rationale behind blowing a ton of resources when we could use those same resources with more tangible effects here on earth? — ChatteringMonkey

Because the resources are tiny in the bigger picture and the technological advancements could be phenomenal - leading to more applicable ways to combat the problem. Dick measuring or not it doesn't matter if it pushes our limitations in regards to how to survive in hostile environments and figure out a way solutions to dealing with such problems on the way.

then again it's impossible to actually calculate the intangible long-term effects to society at large for projects like these. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course. But we know such projects can and have bore fruits. Going to the Moon and creating weaponry for WW2.

And then there's the more traditional critique of this being the mind-set that got us into trouble in the first place, i.e. humanity standing above and beyond nature and the world, constantly trying to control it. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't see much distinction between humanity and nature. We've impacted the globe and will continue to do so. That is not 'unnatural' even though some wish to frame this as 'against nature'. We are able to make mistakes and see possible future mistakes (and correct them) whereas other species cannot do this.

We are not going to go extinct nor is it likely human knowledge will just be erased overnight.

No one saw a solution to many problems humanity has faced along the way. That is why they are called problems. Enough people seem to care to make something happen and more are starting to be practical rather than reactionary.

I also despair when people belittle what Elon Musk has done and is doing. Pushing scientific knowledge and putting ideas to the test will lead to advances that could help everyone. In terms of research into how to colonize Mars it is obvious that anything we learn do that will help us to manage the situation on Earth (he can do it whereas governments cannot justify such things due to lack of public backing).

There's upper physical limits to how much more energy-efficient you can get in the production and distribution of energy. Sure there is still room for improvement there, but not enough I think for renewables to replace fossil fuels entirely. — ChatteringMonkey

I wasn't suggesting replacing all fossil fuels just being more efficient with them. There isn't any realistic scenario (with known tech) atm that would allow every country to stop using fossil fuels. Food production wastes a lot!

Nuclear power maybe could have gotten us there, but as you said this project should've started decades ago because it takes time. — ChatteringMonkey

Better late than never. If it turns out the estimates made are more in our favour such actions NOW could actually make a big difference.

I used to be more of a techno-optimist, thinking we'll find a way etc... But what I and a lot of people with me didn't and don't really appreciate is how exceptional fossil fuels really were and how much they changed the game. It was literally reserves of stored and compacted solar energy that had been accumulating over millennia, gushing out of the ground... 1 gallon of oil is the energy-equivalent of 5 years of human labor, for a fraction of the price. We were wasteful because we could. — ChatteringMonkey

Well if we don't look to this as a way to deal with it then we may as well roll over and die. No thanks!

There is a lot to be said for taking advantage of fossil fuels. Mistreat a horse and it dies. Mistreat fossil fuels and it doesn't protest.

You often hear it's only a matter of political will to convert fully to renewables etc... but has anyone actually seen a plan something other than these high-level abstract calculations that just gloss of particularities of different sectors and industries like say metallurgy, manufacturing etc... How are we generating enough heat with renewables to make steel to name just one thing? — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think any Western government has the strength to do anything much. China can act instantly due to the political setup whereas Russia appears to be disrupting things as switching to MORE gas is better than using coal - not ideal but 'better'.

I dunno, I think we won't get there in terms of energy production, if not because of strictly theoretical limitations, then because of practical issues with converting to other energy-sources. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but this seems by far the most likely scenario to me, that we will have to reduce our energy-consumption, which ultimately means a lack of economic growth too because those always have gone together. — ChatteringMonkey

My point was more or less that if we only used what we really needed (in terms of strict regulations on industry) then we'd use less and growing countries would then adopt these techniques as they'd effectively save them resources. Such things will buy more time if nothing else. In terms of agriculture it would help a huge amount.

More efficiency would probably not translate into a lack of economic growth. I don't see how it would tbh?

The models are probably pretty accurate in what they do. Problem is that what they do doesn't necessarily tell us a lot about how the real world will evolve. They are basically saying we are just climate scientist, we will bracket/make abstraction of everything other than the physics of climate change... and leave messy and complex things like societal and economic feedbacks to someone else. No way we would have stable societies and growing economies all the way up to some of these projected temperatures. — ChatteringMonkey

No doubt the models are improving. There are blind spots though in our knowledge and model need constant tweaking. The human factor cannot be factored in. There are many other factors that are uncertain too such as the effect of the Gulf Stream.

I believe there is no reason we cannot. It depends on whether you believe we have decent societies today or not. I don't think so in general but things have turned around a lot over the last century or so. We're still very much in a period of social adjustment.

Note: EU and UK is behind on GM foods still. They are only just starting to ease up on the paranoia. Again, better late than never :)

It doesn't matter what governments decide that much because they have limited power and I don't see people anywhere that people are willing to give up their freedom today for something they cannot fathom happening tomorrow.

If there is a focus on agriculture, the oceans, greater energy efficiency and on research & innovation in new tech. I think those combined would be a positive step.

A lot will rely on China, Russia and Germany I think. Given the current change in Germany we could see something more concrete established between Russia and Germany. I'm pretty sure Russian tensions are high because of the change in Germany and this could lead to some steps in the right direction.

I don't have any faith in the US government but from the US the billionaires who are actually humanitarian may be enough to counterbalance the stulted nature of the government in this area.

There has to be some serious technological advancements soon that can be exported to developing countries. Maybe solar and wind will help a bit more but the crux seems to be energy storage or just simply efficient use of energy. An agricultural revolution that can be exported to poorer nations would be ideal so anything in that area would be a useful focus imo.

The decent thing the US government could try and do is ban gas guzzling cars ... but I don't see that happening because it would require a more authoritarian rule (something that would be opposed with violence in the US by the citizens).

I certainly don't think the world should be looking to the US to do anything significant or view that nation as leading the way.

One thing is for certain. I DO NOT think anyone should be bullying countries like India. They have problems of their own and it is delusional to expect them to starve their people to death (more than they are already).

@ChatteringMonkey I think the biggest problem is just a simply lack of efficiency. There is too much waste in terms of production and distribution. Sadly these issues are often exacerbated by fears of new technologies. An example of this is the fear of nuclear power (very clean!) that could've already helped to turn the tide a little if nations had started to build next generation reactors a decade ago ... the problem was the cost and public pushback.

Energy use will not decrease (unless poverty increases or population decreases) but efficiency has too either way.

The real hope lies in the scientific models being inaccurate in our favour. It certainly isn't worth gambling with the future and blindly hoping our understanding of how the climate functions is limited enough for us to have made an overestimate when we could just as easily have underestimated the problem.

One thing I would also like to highlight is the kind of nonsense strewn around when people claim to be 'authors' when they've never actually written a book, or have only literally written one terrible book.

This seems to have bled into many areas as some kind of weird 'feel good' rubbish that does little more than belittle those who have spend years and years honing a craft.

You are NOT a philosopher if you've never bothered to read any philosophical work. That said I don't think you're much of a philosopher if you merely the brief accounts of others work rather than the actual work itself. I'm reminded of one guy (who I respect to this day) that went on about Kant a whole lot ... after years of exchanges I actually got around to reading Kant (without guided assistance) and then challenged some of his thoughts after telling him I'd spent a whole year reading and rereading one of Kant's works. He then told me he'd never actually read any of his works in completion to get his degree in philosophy as there wasn't time to do so and nor had he found the time to do so late into his life and retirement. I was baffled by this because he had repeatedly spoke with such authority on the matter and berated others for not 'putting the work in'.

At least I thank him to this day for giving me a good reason to pick up A Critique of Pure Reason and challenging myself.

I think there is something to be said for addressing philosophical questions secluded from the ideas and thoughts of others so one simply isn't trapped in a certain mindset.

Meaning the opposite problem would be to have a world where every philosopher approaches the same issues in the same manner tat everyone before them has done with little to no new insight.

From a personal perspective I'm unsure if I'd be in a better position viewing the thoughts of others on this or that philosopher/philosophy earlier or later. This is something that falls into all pedagogical categories really.

My advice to anyone reading any philosophical work is not to use a guide if they want to the most out of it. People do generally ignore me because it probably takes longer and is often more frustrating to read something you struggle to grasp/understand yet keep on keeping on. Then there is basic life experience. Some philosophical works make more sense with age.

NOTE: None of this is meant to say NEVER look at other people's perspectives and work on this or that area, it is more or less a warning that if you don't struggle and persist you may miss out on the reward of finding something fresh yourself and reaching a point where you can teach yourself how to learn mor efficiently in the future.

We do stand on the shoulders of giants for sure. Worshipping such giants isn't wise though (think of how Aristotle was revered and what Copernicus did). This is why I'm saying most are better off as Scholars or Thinkers not both. Trying to straddle both seems to result in the kind of blind worshipping expressed by those who opposed (or rather dismissed) Copernicus.

I don't understand. — T Clark

Be a Scholar or a Thinker. Trying to be both will usually end up in a mess. Good scholars are probably hard to come by nowadays because it is not exactly fancy work they do.

By Scholar I mean explaining the views and opinions of a text/philosopher rather than forcing one's own views onto it. By Thinker I mean not taking any oppositional stance against a philosophy but rather looking at problems and questions in order to address them or clarify their meaning in a more crystalline form.

A lot of what I see today is 'this person/philosophy is wrong because ...'. I don't care for it. I want either a full analysis of a philosopher/philosophy in a dispassionate manner OR to just see someone go at a problem rather than act in pure opposition to this or that perceived ideological stance.

With too many people dallying between the two we end up with poor scholarly works (opinions cast as reporting) or a lack of original investigation (reporting cast as insight).

You've probably heard of the old reference to science being 99% stamp collecting. How would you analogise philosophy in this manner?

It doesn't anymore than consumption of chocolate.

In my opinion, there's a direct correlation towards IQ and beauty and aesthetics itself. — Shawn

Opinions are opinions. Evidence works better. There is a vague link between health and wealth and IQ but it isn't massive. It is a 'factor' not a 'determining factor'.

So, I’d like to put forth the hypothesis that I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys. I have expressed my skepticism about western philosophy many times before on the forum. Rather than being defensive about it, I have decided to raise laziness to the level of sanctified philosophical principle. Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself. — T Clark

I see two distinctions. The Scholar (those who study philosophers/philosophies with little to no bias in a dry and methodical manner) and the Thinker (those who just observe and play with their thoughts in regards to what is observed).

In regards to philosophy in general I genuinely think this is one area of human knowledge where we’d benefit if the field was more polarised between the two with fewer vying to claim hold of both ends.

The g factor is a thing. That is about all we know. The IQ test was originally made to distinguish children with mental issues so they could be better taught in a more specialised environment. They were never intended to measure the high end of the scale only find the lower end so they could be helped out.

IQ tests that score higher and higher are less and less accurate. IQ tests now also come in many different forms aimed at different groups.

We know higher IQ (g factor) generally relates to higher all round achievement but it isn’t necessary for high achievement (whatever that maybe) nor does having a higher IQ mean you’ll ‘achieve’ anything.

There is a lot of misconceptions surrounding IQ tests. The bottomline is they do measure something generally referred to in the field as the g factor (but it is not an amazingly accurate measure of g and we don’t even know exactly what g is other than to say the higher it is in some individuals the more it seems they’re able to solve novel problems others cannot or do so quicker than others can.

Really though comparing people in this manner is kind of pointless as it is like comparing the art of a musician to the art of a sculptor. We can roughly agree on what music is passable and what sculptures are okay, but cross comparisons only hold so much weight. A bad singer can be successful and a great singer can receive no success. Mostly it seems to be down to planning and hard work when it comes to success, yet for extraordinary success a latent ability and/or luck are key ingredients.

Note: By ‘success’ I mean creations and/or solving problems not ‘living a good life’.

What should I do about this? — Shawn

Take up some form of art.

I wouldn't say it's a fact, but from all surface appearances there does seem to be more division assumed based on conceptions of who someone is, what they think and why they think it in rather simplistic terms (ie. for Brexit=Racist or Against Trump=Marxist).

I don't believe most people in a face-to-face environment would so quickly resort to oversimplifying the position of who they're talking to.

A strange comedic reference to this kind of thing is Bill Burr (or maybe someone else?) where someone complained about him and he called them up to address their issue. They were reasonable and he kind of said it was more about people wanting/needing to be heard by someone.

I think there is something to that as I do sometimes write here because I just want/hope someone will listen ... not because I think I'm write but because it seems human to act like. The stuff I write PURELY to myself is honest whilst anything in the public domain is necessarily buried under some kind of neurosis I believe.

It certainly was Bill Burr joking about how men love the interent because theyt can go back to being immature kids again where you just walk up to people and say 'I don't like your face!' without caring much about anything. To do this to someone in person would result in broken noses for a lot of people :D

A agree though. It is hardly new that people react badly to what they don't understand. GM foods paranoia is something many Green people still cling to.