Haha.

Is that all seagulls do?

I've always liked the voice of seagulls - such a beautiful chord.

And don't get me started on the grey seagulls.

What's the relationship between beauty and art?

Can a beautiful person be considered good art?

In the following scenario, a human has the best eyes; this human generates a lot of interest. Does good art mean more interest?

epistemological question whether can objective science ever explain subjective phenomena of perception and understanding

With reference to the OP, do you see the world in some other way? What other way would there be to see the world?
— tim wood

Subject, object and [new '-ject' word] concerning subject/object qualia.

I see the world as an ongoing union of many forces and elements.

Object, subject and then deeper, I think is sensible.

Alice(subject), see's Bob(object) - but what is Alice and Bob without the deeper understanding of people?
— Qwex

I made this post earlier.

I described the Earth as I sensed it, partially scientific, partially creative. Can I sense, purely, the experience, or must I conduct science?

I might not be able to define a star 100,000 light years away, but it is visible.

Are we over inflating our science, above mind and simulation? Mind and simulation allows us to conduct science.

If the artist means something in it's art, then the correct way to interpret it is by that degree.

However, is it ok to interpret art incorrectly? I think so.

Unless, per se, there is a greater judge, who thinks 'no, it means this in it's best light', then the artist's meaning loses it's credibility. Perhaps, it's a matter of judgement.

It probably was true - knowing universal strangeness.

The first intelligent humans were likely advised by some governing being.

Of course I am joking, but if I was going to believe in the unlikely, it would take more this format.

What I don't get is, if Jesus can easily be traded for Mike, why are Christians so strict about the name Jesus?

Is there such thing as imperative (or 'significant') knowledge?

If I play Rainbow Six Siege, a First-Person-Shooter, in the first inings of a match-up, I don't know where the enemy are located. This means I must scout, or fortify a strategic location.

I'm less agile when it comes to offense and defence in this match-up; this knowledge is imperative, and I've not acquired it yet.

If my team mate spots an enemy and tells me over the microphone, I will defer to his expertise.

This decision is based on trust obtainable in a virtual contest; some scenarios - such as real combat - may require that evidence is produced.

Contrary to imperative knowledge, is the knowledge of, per se, what shade of blue a pixel in the sky is. If someone communicated in the game, all the various shades of every pixel, I would never defer to his expertise - it's off topic.

To conclude, I will only defer to another's expertise, if it's knowledge is imperative, and I don't regard that every known expert, is righteously known as an expert. Knowing the shade of every pixel in a game just means it's spent a lot of time with an available resource. Does it account for imperative knowledge?

Good luck in your thought-process.

Again, I'm unsure of whether creator is the right word.

My idea is that an ancient species used certain resources from their environment to create[replace with proper word] the specimen/bonding, of resources, which reacted and 'big banged'.

That's if it was a big bang, I'm not saying it was; other theory: giant volatile clouds.

So, to answer your question, yes, my current belief, and hypothesis of such (and that's all it is), is that the creator was sentient.

I agree with you GCB, but I think God is a poorly characterized creator, and the bible, non-scientific. I, personally, believe the universe was created, or something like it.

I don't call this God, and I know morality properly.

God is not the same as creator, I even doubt the word 'creator' as the right word (referring to a more specific word - like "builder" - or, creatively, 'manifer').

God is an artisically characterized creator.

Sorry for my insult, I'm tired of God.

Are mental phenonmena non-existent? Are mental phenomena fabricated?

Does the physical world project color?

It's a common notion that our eyes interpret a frequency. Is the frequency, without mind, formless color?

Yes, it is atheistic, but by no means does that mean it's against an idea of a creator, nor other simulations.

God is a characterized creator; it's also based on a story book.

I can ponder the idea of a creator, but whether that is a 'God', is a different matter.

Edit: I take back what I said and agree with OP's answer.

In theory, saying it's at the peers discretion, limits art. I have thought this through now...

Yeah, exactly.

You can kill a high value person, in which case you did something wrong to a particular one or group - you might be punished.

You can kill someone and no-one finds out. Is it murder then?

Killing in this universe is already a high probability from the beginning, there is no moderation.

Are we expected to moderate ourselves? Is killing ok in some contexts (such as a hunger - related kill?)

I think there is the possibility of an object at absolute rest, but not within the contraints of this universe.

Therefore, I confer, if there is an object at absolute rest, it must be external to the universe.

Thus, all is not motion, but everything in the universe, is always moving.

The great ebb and flow of everything, hides sleightly the fact I'm never still - maddening actually.

EDIT: unless this object at absolute rest probes the universe, then it might be internal.

I bare similar traits to my Mother and Father, here are two images which prove that.




I can make facial expressions that are like my Mother or Father, and other expressions, but I'm always limited by their paired genetics.

I act like my Father when I'm mad - this is automatic.

This truth has led me to disagree with the OP.

It's likely I do behave a lot like my family, albeit, with a lot of uniqueness.

I'm neither my Mother or Father, I'm both (dare I say 'and more?').

With reference to the OP, do you see the world in some other way? What other way would there be to see the world? — tim wood

Subject, object and [new '-ject' word] concerning subject/object qualia.

I see the world as an ongoing union of many forces and elements.

Object, subject and then deeper, I think is sensible.

Alice(subject), see's Bob(object) - but what is Alice and Bob without the deeper understanding of people?

Happy to be shared, if me (I'm not paranoid nor sure if it is me). I won't reply to it.

Trump is the best of the bunch, but the bunch is potatoes, grown on the lowest quality of ground - hardly fertile.

I'd prefer him in power for one or two more terms, to let the feminist movement simmer.

Who wants the pro-impeachment side in charge?

That would be a sick joke. We'd all be in danger. I hate corruption.

Trump, is currently performing well. I just know a better personality exists, and a wiser mind.

Hmm.

It's going to be hard for me to expand because it took me a long time to word that paragraph..

Given all information in the universe, a lot of this information can be discarded or categorized, unless the objective is to truly track every object.

When building a theory of everything, you only take what you need from universe experience?

Then, is it fair to say the theory of everything is existential? Relative to existence and not only the universe experience.

Relative to simulation as a whole, maybe?

It can be said that a conscious mind created the universe. I'm not religious but I'm open to the idea.

If that makes no sense, or if there's part missing, as I think there is in line 5, I'm sorry but I'll need thinking time.

I don't think racism is only about insulting differences, but instating that these differences exist.

Are you sure people who claim to be victims of racism, aren't just victims of racist bullying?

Call me White, I don't care; call me a Bad White, I'll take it on the head. I think racism can be out of control, as with racist slavery, but, generally, it's not as severe enough, to shout or cry if the topic is brought up.

StreetlghtX. TheMadFool presents a sound argument. There's nothing to your racelessness that isn't in 'gender identity' - we've seen all weakness of man in that category.

Some people are born less fortunate than others, by your logic, we ignore this and call the fortunate and the unfortunate, equal. Valid differences can be, and are registered.

I have rejected that knowledge from human sources, is true, all my life, but I accept them as potentially true.

I don't believe our pool of knowledge is perfect.

I'd rather take what I know from existence, than the word of another person - I have trust issues.

My first realizations from what you have written as 'A = all propositions are false', is that I exist; further, there is existential pheonomena, and how I exist is a structured existential phenomenon.

I don't regard the universe (the structured existential phenomenon) as all that exists, it has not presented itself in this way; I'm aware of existence (as a mental concept).

Therefore, my theory of everything must be existential and not universal; regarding the universe, but not falling too deep within it's contraint.

Thinking out of the box, per se, but not insanely.

I'm aware I exist in the universe, but 'I exist' comes foremostly.

"If this knowledge is true I can use my mind to find out" - a motto I live by.

If we test communicated knowledge through our own science, it helps to filter communicated knowledge, and gain trust with certain sources.

A camel, is a horse designed by comittee. I'm afraid wikipedia is like a camel; which can be good but I'm doing my own computation first.

On a serious note, during your dissection of my post, you missed half of it.

I'll stop the debate with you here...

I don't think intelligence is a human standard.

If you are intelligent, there is reward. — Qwex

If anyone else wants to address this, which is the underlying princple to my argument, feel free.

You're just joking around...

You've asked poor questions and you're now being destructive.

Apparently

For your self-security? Based on your judgement of my intellect?

That's not what I meant. We are able judges, but we are not thee judge.

Stupidity concerning what intelligence is.

If I need an intelligent idol, I'll appoint one - do I need one forced upon me?

I don't think intelligence is a human standard.

If you are intelligent, there is reward.

You don't need another human to clarify that you're intelligent; and that process is entirely unintelligent.

You become adult by the world.

Other humans can offer you aid, but it's optional.

Pleasure and pain are synonymous; we wouldn't be able to feel such great pleasure without the pain.

The universe is not perfect. Ideally, it would be like your later suggestion.

I'd struggle to answer this - "what" - maybe. "Why" requires pre universe information, that I have not acquired. Could I?

Thanks a lot Baden :starstruck:

It's not that bad. I'm not stupid is too condensating... ^^

Also grandparents, ancestors.

We become adult by the world, the forces and elements which create the environment where we exist.

Anything we ever learn is also thanks to the world.

Our frames of reference are world-logical.

If it was to cease to exist, what exactly is the worth of what you know? If you know what a 'tree' is, how can it be applied? You would laze off.

Anyway it's not an empty universe if you exist.

The insulting demeanour of your post seemed more stupid than anything I've ever said.

You saying I have a clept pallate? I don't.

What sort of logic were you expecting me to think? I don't see any argument - thesis - or retort.

So, I'll take the buzz and be on my merry way.

... *hay rolls by*

Ok, well, I'll trust you. Not sure how long I'll last though.

Okay, Baden, but it's not from the get go. All my threads were moderated. I'm not going to mention and argue for them, I'm not refusing moderation. I question only whether one man's mind can decide the standard.

A few questions.

Do we draw from the structure of the universe - it's simulation - in some way? Or is it projected?

If yes, everything does boil down to something simple.

We also simplify the complex.

If an unknown theory becomes known, does it become simpler?

It's so much your opinion, moderation of threads.

I wrote a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thread on religious circumcision being a crime.

It was removed because it's your forum but no logical excuse could be/was provided.

It's bad for philosophy to restrict philsophical discussion because one man thinks it's wrong. Whoever removes the threads, are obviously enjoying themselves.

If this insults you, I find that repulsive. It means your hiding from debate with potentially greater minds.

What does that say about what you're running here?

Give people the freedom to discuss, if the thread is unpopular, it will show - you do not know if it's unpopular - the community decides.

Or there is no community; just your heads and slaves.

I just want to know how to write a good thread by this elusive mind's standards.

I'm trying to fit in - I'm being courteous and try to resolve any confusion to my statements. I DON'T be stupid. Any thought on the matter is a hunkered laugh, at most, I say well-thought out - fool proof - information. I accept if you don't agree and I present arguments for my points. The fact I may be banned soon shows a corrupt, opinionated system. It's not philosophy in this scenario, is babyish, small fame.

What do you suppose we do with evil?

Evil that exists in this universe is contained - there is not overwhelming evil.

You can be evil, as long as it's limited.

Why is there pain and suffering?

It's rational to adjurn such diverse lifeform; good hells and good heavens; to punish/reward people.

This universe is a low frequency hell.

Every life must experience old age, risk injury or illness and experience death.