What post-human civilization would create simulations of waiting in a doctor's office for hours before being called into the exam room? or of waiting for hours in a waiting room while your vehicle was being repaired? or the hours it takes to drive cross-country? or any other menial, boring job or event that takes hours when we usually play simulations on our phones or in our heads to pass the time during these events in order to escape the boredom and pass the time.

So what the OP is telling us is that these events are boring to us but meaningful and enjoyable to a post-human civilization? Why would the post-human civilization have simulations inside simulations to pass the time in the boring parts of the first simulation? That doesn't sound very efficient to me.

According to what you have said, yes. — Michael

...and what you agreed with. So, we agree on one thing - that there is a false dichotomy between physical things and mental things, therefore dualism is just wrong.

They'd also be false, given that some things can't interact with other things (e.g. light and dark matter). — Michael

Dark matter is just an idea, or a solution (that hasn't been proven), to our observation of the behavior of galaxies. So to use light and dark matter as an example of things that don't interact is quite presumptuous. Do you have any other examples of things that can't interact?

Of course. Like I said, the problem of causation is a problem for everyone. — Michael

If "substance" is vacuous, then it would seem to me that "causation" would be vacuous as causation is dependent on the idea of like substance can, and do, interact with each other. If they aren't the same substance, then how do they interact? We can observe that these things do interact, and can even make predictions of what kind of effect will result from a certain cause. An explanation of causation would also need to explain how we can make causal predictions that come true more than they don't. To have a higher than 50% chance of making causal predictions must mean something, no?

Then physicalism and idealism are identical. They both just assert "all things interact with each other". — Michael

So materialists and idealists are one and the same and have no idea that they have been arguing for the same thing all of these centuries?

They'd also be false, given that some things can't interact with other things (e.g. light and dark matter). — Michael

And that needs to be explained - why some things can interact and some things can't - again without using terms like "substance" (because, according to you, it is a vacuous term), or "physical" or "mental".

What I'm taking issue with is the claim "everything is physical" or "everything is mental". The point is that it isn't even clear what it means to be physical or mental, as per Hempel's dilemma.

I'm not taking issue with the claim that there exists more than one thing. — Michael

Then why do you keep making claims about how there is a distinction between my mind and other minds (more than one mind)? You keep veering off in different directions. I wonder if you really understand what it is that you are talking about.

My point has been that if different things interact with each other, then it is pointless to call these things "physical" or "mental". They are the same "substance" if they can interact. Period. That's all we need to know. What we label the primary "substance" is irrelevant - especially if there is no difference in how it interacts, or how it behaves when compared to claims of some other "substance" behaving and interacting the same way. We can both dispense with the terms, "physical" and "mental". They aren't necessary to make yours, or my, points. Now that you understand that it isn't necessary to use these terms, now explain to me how minds interact, without using the terms, "mental" or "physical" or "substance".

So what are mental phenomena? If you're a physicalist then you think that mental phenomena are brain processes. So you must understand the claim "only mental phenomena exist" as the claim "only brain processes exist". Does that seem right? — Michael

So when a doctor opens your skull and looks at your brain, then why does he only see a brain and not your mind? Why does his mind experience a brain instead of another mind? How would he get at looking at your mind?

I know. I explicitly said (twice, I think) that the very notion of "substance" is vacuous.

But that's besides the point I'm making, — Michael

But that's the thing - If the notion of "substance" is vacuous, then any point you attempt to make about a particular substance is vacuous (my vs. other). The claim that you are seperate from any thing is a claim about how your substance differs from other things. If it isn't then what are you actually saying? How is it that your mind isn't other minds, or how is it that other minds aren't your mind?

And without some kind of universal perceiver, the idealist has no way to justify the existence of other minds. The universal perceiver plays the role of spacetime for idealists. — Marchesk

But then the idealist has to explain how it is that the universal perceiver doesn't need a perceiver themselves in order to exist. It really is no different than the problem of explaining how God doesn't need a designer for itself. Idealism is really religion in different wrapping paper.

Why? Do we require something to explain the separation of physical stuff? — Michael

Yes.

What separates this photon from that electron? — Michael

Time and space.
What separates this mental phenomenon from that mental phenomenon?

If you're a physicalist and believe that the mind is just brain processes (for example), do you understand idealism to be the claim that only brain processes exist? Or do you understand the claim "only mental phenomena exist" to be something else? — Michael

I don't understand the question. I understand physicalism as the claim that mental processes are brain processes and they exist, but are not the only kind of processes to exist, and idealism as the claim that only mental phenomenon exist.

You haven't done anything to clarify how mental substances are different from physical substances. To say that both viewpoints have the same problems is to say that they are the same viewpoint. WHAT is different between your view of idealism that you claim doesn't allow one to fall into solipsism, and physicalism? What makes them separate ideas?

One says that things are physical, the other that things are mental. It's a disagreement on the nature of the fundamental substance. It's not a disagreement on whether or not there are parts of the world that are not me. That would be solipsism vs non-solipsism.

All I'm saying is that idealism doesn't entail solipsism. There can be mental phenomena that isn't me. The Cartesian dualist says as much. — Michael

That isn't all you are saying. You philosophers don't seem to realize the implications of what you are saying. There is always more to what you are saying. It's just that you don't tend to think about the implications of what you are saying on the rest of your beliefs and world-view.

What you are saying is that mental stuff behaves the same way as physical stuff. What you are saying is that science can, and does, explain the behavior of mental stuff. So much for those idealist claims that science can NEVER explain the mind!

What you are saying is that mental light can be bent when passing through a mental glass of water, just as physical light can be bent when passing through a physical glass of water. Again, what is the difference between idealism and materialism, as you seem to imply that the only difference is the name of the substance? Why do we need a body if everything is mental?

There's no reason to believe that the existence of physical bodies is required to maintain this separation of minds. — Michael

Something is required to explain the separation of minds. Are mental bodies required to maintain the separation of minds? How are mental bodies different than physical bodies?

Pretty much. As Hempel's dilemma shows, there's hardly even a coherent understanding of what it even means be a physical thing. And I think the same dilemma can be used to question the notion of the mental, too (and any other monism).

Substance is a vacuous concept. — Michael

Then idealism/materialism (or any idea that says that there is substance) is an idea that is based on a vacuous concept?

We never experience other minds, only other bodies. You learn to predict other people's behavior that you know well. — Harry Hindu

Nope, that's not what I said. And you just repeated what you previously said, so you're clearly talking past what I'm saying. — Agustino

Nope. I said that we never experience other minds, and you said we can. I then repeated myself and said that we can't. So no, we aren't talking past each other. The problem seems to be that you either spoke past what I originally said, or you didn't clearly explain what it is that you meant.

Actually, sometimes it is possible to experience people as a mind if you develop the sensitivity for it. In this way, you can catch what they're thinking before they even say it. But it takes a bit to build such a connection. — Agustino

We never experience other minds, only other bodies. You learn to predict other people's behavior that you know well.

And the idealist says the same. Only that the human beings that we interact with are mental/immaterial things, not physical/material things. — Michael

Then why don't I experience your mind instead of your body when we touch?

Are our minds touching when I read your words on this screen? How is that different than being in each other's presence? I can experience you as words on a screen, or as a body, or as a voice on the phone, but never as a mind.

When I look in a mirror, I don't experience a reflection of my mind. I experience a reflection of my body.

And the idealist can say the same. — Michael

Materialism suffers from the same epistemological problem. — Michael

And the idealist would agree. — Michael

So then what is the difference between materialism and idealism? Why choose one over the other?

It seems to me that you are saying that we aren't disagreeing on which meat we are chewing on, rather we are chewing on the same meat and we are merely disagreeing on the name of the meat we are chewing on.

If all you want to do is argue that idealism is wrong, then fine. But it's still the case that there are forms of idealism that don't entail solipsism; that claim that the fundamental nature of the world is mental/immaterial, but that my mind is just one small part of a much bigger world (which contains other minds). — Michael

What is it that separates other minds, if not time and space, for us to say that there are other minds besides my own? What is it that causes us to experience other bodies, and not other minds, when we "touch"?

Yeah, it is regulated by money and dogma which puts it well within the sphere of religion.

More money begaths more theories. A Genesisl story of a different sort. — Rich

So what is your point? - That any idea that is funded is hogwash? - That making any explanation for ours and the universe's existence is a waste of time? What is it exactly that you are making an argument for?

What if we designed a robot that could act scared when it saw a snake? Purely mechanical of course. Part of the fear response would be the hydraulic pump responsible for oiling the joints speeds up, and that higher conduction velocity wires are brought into play to facilitate faster reaction times. This control system is regulated through feedback loops wired into the head of the robot. When the snake is spotted the control paths in the head of the robot suddenly reroute power away from non-essential compartments such as recharging the batteries and into the peripheral sense receptors. Artificial pupils dilate to increase information through sight, and so on. — MikeL

How do we know that we are scared if not an awareness of our own physical characteristics - heart beating faster, adrenaline rush, the need to run, etc. and then know the symbol for those characteristics occurring together - "fear" - in order to communicate that you fear something.

You mention the physical characteristics of fear. All that is needed is an awareness of those physical characteristics and a label, or designation, for those characteristics - "fear". In this sense, the robot would know fear, and know that it fears if it can associate those characteristics with its self. A robot can be aware of its own condition and then communicate that condition to others if it has instructions for which symbol refers to which condition: "fear", "content", "sad", etc.

Natural selection is just a nice story, without a shred of evidence, that appeals to those seeking fitter and not fitter. The Nazis loved it. — Rich

Wrong. It has plenty of evidence. You are just to frightened to look into it. It is religion and unfalsifiable philosophical claims (which would be most of philosophy) that have not a shred of evidence.

A brief survey of life will reveal that everyone is living, everyone is dying, some a bit earlier than others and some a bit later than others. No big deal either way and as far as humans are concerned, much sooner than turtles and trees. That's about it after billions of years. Lots of variety and as always lots of surprises. The one thing I haven't figured out is why elephants haven't evolved to shoot guns back at the hunters and why we haven't evolved into cockroaches? — Rich

If you had a better understanding of evolution by natural selection, the answers would be easy. I'm sure you understand how difficult it is to have an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

The preposterous story of magical mutations that just happen out of thin air and which magically work. Even biologists are running away from. But they can't run to far because then they would have to admit that once again they are all wrong, which would upset the devotees if these magical myths of "it just happens .... over very, very, long periods of time". Behold the wonders of "it just happens".

Evolution is exactly as it seems. Minds, all minds, experimenting, learning, and constantly adapting. Let's just call natural selection a nice tale created by minds for the exactly the same reasons Genesis was created - to fulfill a need. — Rich

"Magic" isn't a scientific term. However it is a term used by the religious. Magic is the basis of all religion, actually - not science.

Mutations happen randomly, not magically. "Random" simply means that we don't yet understand the mechanism that causes genes to not make perfect copies of themselves sometimes. There could be numerous causes: radiation, disease, etc., but magic is not one of them.

Natural selection is everywhere. It is the reason planets have the shape they have, as well as organisms. It also has an influence on your mind - as you adapt (learn) to new conditions - acquiring new knowledge and rejecting old knowledge in favor of the new. Natural selection is simply an environmental feedback mechanism that shapes the individual constituents of the environment - one of which is your mind.

[For those who deny that bacteria hold any awareness and some minimal degree of freewill, the transition nevertheless happened somewhere along the way toward being human; I pick at this level for my own reasons … As for myself, I’ll not here again debate where the transition first occurred, nor on whether reality is all determinist v. indeterminist. Again, the intended theme here is how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency.] — javra

The difference between life and non-life is quite distinguishable in the extremes, as when we compare a rock to a human being. As we move further back in time, back to where the distinction isn't so clear, we find objects that have the features of life and non-life, like truffles which is more than a rock but less than a mushroom. Just like everything else, the boundaries are blurred when we get at the root of it. The same can be said about the differences between man and ape when we begin to look at the origin of man.

"At what point can we say that the precursors of man become man himself?"
-Jacob Bronowski in the Ascent of Man

I deny that bacteria hold any conscious agency as they have no nervous system, much less a central nervous system. Conscious agency does happen along the way to being human. It is the difference between having a basic nervous system, like a nerve net in starfish (no conscious agency) and a central nervous system (conscious agency) where the brain is the place where the sensory information comes together into a whole experience.

"Mutations" are just experiments. "Let's see what will happen if I do this?" — Rich

Then we are all just experiments? Humans are simply the current fancy of some intelligent designer and when it grows bored it will eradicate us in favor of something more interesting.

Does knowing that you are merely an experiment make you feel better about yourself than knowing that you are the result of exponential random mutations over eons?

It suggests that the primary driver for evolution to occur is not a Survival of the Fittest Model but rather a Creative Evolution Model. That life actively strives to throw out new variants and in doing maximises its survival. This is different to Survival of the Fittest where variants are not encouraged by evolution but become useful nonetheless in times of great change. — MikeL

But what would make some variant useful under the CEM, if not great environmental change?

It seems that you are arguing that mutations crop up as the result of some intelligence, instead of the random miscopying of genes.

Most mutations are a hinderence to survival, and are rejected in the current environmental conditions and most other conditions that exist on Earth, past, present, and future. So where is the intelligence in that? Is there an intelligece behind the changing of environments throughout Earth's geological history? You'd have account for that change and the cause of it. Is it the same intelligence evolving organisms, or are there two intelligences - one that controls the evolution of organisms, and one that controls the changing environment and both are in a never-ending battle against each other?

Hoffman has his interpretation of the behavior of the beetle and I have a different one. The beetle is just expressing its sexual orientation, rejecting females for a bottle. Who are we to judge its sexual preferences? The beetle knows full well what it is doing, just as gays know what they are doing and we don't say that they are misinterpreting their sensory data. They are simply behaving as they were made.

Since Hoffman and I have different interpretations, neither one of us could point to the beetles behavior as supporting our argument. And to say that there is a consensus of interpreting the beetles behavior is to reject Hoffman's argument that we construct reality. How is it that so many different perspectives come up with the same interpretation if there wasn't an objective world that we all come from and perceive similarly? Is Hoffman constructing your reality by explaining the beetles behavior as a result of his interpretation?

If you laugh or scoff at my interpretation, then you are rejecting Hoffman's argument. Why else would you laugh or scoff at my interpretation if there is no objective world where a real beetle is mating with a real bottle and there is real misinterpretaion happening and that we perceive as the truth? If reality is what we construct, then my reality is just as real as yours and the beetle's.

Yet another problem is Hoffman rejecting the beetle's construction of reality. Who is to say that we aren't misinterpreting the bottle? Who is the one with a misinterpretation - us or the beetle? And to even say that there is misinterpretation going on is to say that there is a reality outside that we aren't perceiving correctly - that there really is a bottle instead of a female there that beetle is mating with and the beetle is the one misinterpreting, not us.

Hoffman, and those supporting his argument, don't even seem to realize their own contradictions. The fact that intelligent people can debate this for 16 pages is ridiculous.

So where does sand get its shape so that it might compose a beach? How does it get roundish, smoothed and graded by size? What higher constraints lead to the formation of every particle of sand. — apokrisis

Natural selection. Organisms are shaped by natural selection. Planets are shaped by natural selection. Sand gets it's shape from natural selection. Natural selection, in this sense, is the process of environmental feedback acting on an individual and the individual's influence on the rest of the environment.

I believe it to be true that these pop-scientists have realized after thirty years that they picked the wrong field and wish they had as much fun as the philosophers do. Thus they go through a process of ressentiment and accuse philosophy as accomplishing nothing and being worthless, while simultaneously attempting to steal philosophy's questions. It's all very profitable, too. The fact is, however, that philosophical questions resist answering due to their high complexity. In other words, philosophy is hard and only for grown ups. — darthbarracuda

People remember famous scientists more than famous philosophers because the famous scientists are the ones that changed our lives and how we think about ourselves more than any philosopher.

The key to understanding the relationship between philosophy and science is to realize that philosophy is a science. And the conclusions of one branch of the investigation of reality must not contradict those of another. All knowledge must be integrated.

You cannot have a philosophical belief that contradicts a scientific one. If your philosophical belief isn't falsifiable and the scientific theory that contradicts it is falsifiable and hasn't been falsified, then it looks like your philosophical belief is worthless, or at least no better than any other idea that isn't falsifiable, which can be any crazy idea that any human being can come up with as an explanation to anything.

Once a belief (religious or philosophical) becomes falsifiable, it becomes scientific.

philosophy examines how we make sense of the world - it makes sense of our sense-making (hence 'second-order'). Another important function of philosophy is to propose new ways of sense-making: we should understand the world like so, instead of like so. 'Sense', I think, being perhaps the most important question of philosophy, underlying even that of truth; thus the question of truth - 'what is truth'? - ought to be understood to ask not after this or that truth, but the very meaning and sense of truth itself. — StreetlightX

This sounds like you are describing science. Making sense of our sense-making is cognition - a scientific discipline. There is also evolutionary psychology. Science has been encroaching on philosophical questions, just as it has encroached on religious questions, and is addressing these problems better than philosophy or religion ever could.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private.

I don't think "Bitter" is the correct term. "Angry" would be a more relevant term for me. If the last election didn't prove it to everyone, then I don't know what else could possibly wake Americans up. The last election showed us that the govt. isn't the will of the people. It is will of the elitists and lobbyists, and it's been that way for a long time.

The elitists are the ones that influenced the Democratic primary - giving it to Clinton. Trump seemed more a result of the "Will of the People" - although the will of People desperate for real change. Most of the people who voted for him simply wanted something different - an outsider - but Trump is part of status quo - part of the very swamp he claims to want to drain. You don't have to live or work only in Washington DC to be part of the swamp.

What we need are people that aren't part of the political game - real, hard-working people that don't have the goal to make politics a life-long job - that aren't in it to fatten their own pockets. Politics should be non-profit with no benefits above what regular government employees receive. There needs to be term limits and serious campaign finance reform. Finally, we need to eliminate political parties as they have become hypocritical to the point of being nonsensical. The two-party system is antiquated. This would be a beginning in making the Angry American more of a Happy American.

That's the way I read it. I think Mr. Irreductionist would need to clearly explain what it is that is missing from Mr Reductionists explanation.

Many emergent properties are the result of our perspective. As we zoom in, we can see an emergent property splitting into it's individual parts and their interactions, and as we zoom out we can observe the emergent property forming out of the individual parts and their interactions. Emergent properties are the result of how the brain handles sensory information at different size scales.

Ignorance, and the correlating bliss, is the primary symptom of a having a delusion.

Do you want to have only wanted beliefs to be blissfully ignorant (delusional), or unwanted beliefs and be knowledgable but have increased stress?

Should I be blissfully ignorant that a giant hurricane is bearing down on my home town of Miami, or should I stay informed and prepare? While everyone else is running scared from the hurricane, gas and water shortages, I'm sitting blissfully at home playing video games. Which will help me more when the hurricane actually arrives?

It isn't consciousness that is the illusion, but the feeling of "looking at" things - the Cartesian theater - the subjectivity - that is the illusion.

I have yet to see any discussion of consciousness take into account attention and how it is a key constituent of consciousness. The feeling of looking at things in your mind is simply the distinction being made between different degrees of amplified sensory signals. Our attention is what "looks at" the other constituents of consciousness by amplifying certain sensory signals over others as it pertains to the present goal. Certain areas of consciousness are clear while others are more fuzzy and faded, with the clear areas being what we are currently attending (looking at), as opposed to the fuzzy faded stuff, which is what we aren't looking at. The feeling of "what is like" is simply the attention turning back on itself.

You're right. I might have been 13. But seriously, I'm not here to debate religion. Religion is more about people controlling other people through rituals, promises and threats then anything else. It has its upsides, like bringing people together at Christmas - that's always nice, but any thinking person has to shut one eye and raise one eyebrow when they read through the Bible stories or other stories. — MikeL

Yet, where else did you get the idea of God from? You are right in that you were born an atheist. It is only after hearing about god and had it reinforced by those around you, that you developed the belief and hold it as true. Do you feel that you need God to exist to give your purpose and a belief in the afterlife?

If you want a definition of God, then why don't we say, it is the sentience of the universe. It is in everything. It is everything. The sentient atom. Perhaps a sentient universe is passing through a universe of a different energy - like Time - causing little bubbles of interference to pop up like the bubbles that pop up when you run your hands through the water. Maybe those bubbles are our physical universe. Who knows? Its good to wonder though. — MikeL

But the universe is mostly a vacuum and lifeless.

Science has its God Creator and it is called the Big Bang that created everything in approximately the same amount of time. When choosing between religious stories of creation, I always go for the one that is most entertaining, which in this case is the Bible. — Rich

THAT is the primary problem - that you, and every other believer in a god, do so as a result because it feels good and gives you purpose. This is the primary symptom of a delusion - beliefs in things that cover up reality to make you feel better. Religion is an adaptation for handling stress.

I guess a lot of you will have heard of Donald Hoffman. He's a Californian (natch!) professor of Cognitive Science, whose philosophy is called 'conscious realism'. — Wayfarer

Observe how he uses the behavior of the beetle to show how we could be inaccurately perceiving reality. If we aren't perceiving reality accurately, how do we know that there is actually a beetle there misinterpreting it's perceptions and mating with a bottle? There would be no sense in doing science if we don't have some consistent reality that we share in order to test each other's theories! - and he's a scientist? No, he's a hack.

Yes, we project a lot of ourselves on to what we perceive. Yes, our sensory systems aren't perfect (this is what would be expected by evolution by natural selection - a blind feedback process that simulates selection). But to say that there is no correlation between the degree of accuracy of one's sensory systems and one's fitness is ridiculous.

What does it mean for some sensory representation to be useful? For anything to be useful, there must be some degree of truth associated with it. There must be something about the relationship between the representation and what is being represented that is accurate for it be useful. The beetles' misinterpretation isn't a problem humans have. We tend to not have much of a problem finding mates for procreation. If it does occur, it is the result of being under the influence of drugs, or a mental problem, not a common misinterpretation most humans share - like bent straws in water. But seeing bent straws in water, and mirages, are the result of how light behaves (an external mind-independent process), not a result of our "construction of reality". Because we see light, and not the objects themselves, mirages and bent straws in water are what we should see.

What about when we look at each other? He seems to admit that other perspectives exist independent of his own mind. Why, then is the rest of reality constructed? What is it that separates each perspective from each other, if not space-time?

That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. — MikeL

We could say the exact same thing about religion. Religion has been conceited with itself for thousands of years - to the point of murdering non-believers - because it observes a little string of facts (the universe exists, I have a feeling of awe when thinking about the universe's existence, the information in the Bible, etc.) and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. So, if this is somehow a detriment to science, it is a detriment to religion as well. The fact is that is how we figure things out - by observing and then organizing our observations into a consistent story. That is the key difference between religion and science. Religion is not consistent.

Now that I think about it, it is quite amazing to see religious people say things like this about science and then turn around and use the finding of science to (like QM) to support their belief in God.

Really? Better ones? I am yet to hear them. There is a little string of observations such as red shifts and background microwave radiation that have been sewn together into an elaborate theory. Is that the better explanation because it has a few more parts to it? It also has a few more holes in it. Quite big ones. — MikeL

Then you have yet to listen. I find it very hard to believe that you really understood evolution at 12 years old to make a decent argument for it when your father confronted you about it. I was raised a Christian and believed it all until I started to find inconsistencies that I couldn't ignore. I eventually became an atheist after fully understanding the implications of evolution. I would recommend Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True".

Have we repeated the Big Bang? I'll have to check my notes on that one. — MikeL

We have repeatedly observed the expansion of the universe and the background radiation that is evidence of the Big Bang.

It's true that we need a singular definition of God to please the scientists. This is their main bone of contention, they don't know what to attack and so they call it all a lie. But in creating a definition of God to please the scientists we of course will make it fit with the observable, so in the very act of defining God we prove its existence to science. Do we not? Science cannot win this. — MikeL

The problem, as I have already stated in my first post here in this thread, is that the definition of God is inconsistent. Why don't you get together with the Muslims and Hindus, and the native peoples of Africa and South America, and come up with a consistent definition of God, then we can talk about science proving God's existence.

But they are great at making up stories: the Big Bang That Became Human, or " The Theory of It Just Happened". — Rich

When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question.

Its not scientists' job to show that God exists. The burden is on the claimant to show that it exists. If I claimed that unicorns exist, or that Elvis is alive, the burden isn't on you to prove that I'm wrong. The burden is on me to show that I'm right.

I can point to hoof-prints in the sand and say that a unicorn made those, and that they could only be there for us both to see if a unicorn passed by here. There can be no other explanation. But there is, as a horse could have made those same impressions in the sand. The same goes for the claim that the universe is evidence of God's existence. There are other, better explanations for the universe being here.

"Science is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment.If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. The rules are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth."

- James Burke in "The Day the Universe Changed" (the best history/science documentary ever)

This is a great description of science and how it is different from other methods of seeking truth. I underlined and italicized the key points.

Claims about the nature of God vary so widely and correlate with the region of the world, and time in history, in which the claimant is born. Scientific hypotheses and theories only vary based on the level of objective experimentation by as many scientists as possible, and then tested by the general population using the technology the theory is based on. It is safe to say that humans have a good understanding of fire and lightning, as we have used technologies harnessing these natural processes for a long time. AND the technologies work for everyone, in every culture and in every time. Both Christians AND Muslims can use electric generators (converts gasoline into electricity) to power their homes after their God sends them a massive rain storm.

I could go on, but this post would be too long.

Billions of people have found fulfillment in not just reproducing, but nurturing their children and bringing them up to become happy successful adults. That's all to the good, and when taken seriously is a fine purpose for any life. I think most people in the world approach marriage and family in that way, if they have a choice (some don't have much choice in the matter).

What isn't so fine is casual reproduction where someone thinks having a baby will make their life better (the baby becomes a means to an end) or where someone has a baby they don't want, and resents it. — Bitter Crank

Like I said, nurturing your children is part of the procreation process. You children need to develop into viable and social offspring in order to say that you have procreated. Procreation doesn't end with sex and the subsequent birth.

We weren't talking about what makes one's life better. We're talking about what one's purpose in life is. Does having a purpose necessarily correlate to making one's life better? Can we have a purpose in life that doesn't make one's life better, or what you want, or like, it to be?

We often correlate the purpose of things with their design. Does one's purpose correlate with one's design - or one's natural tendency to behave in certain ways? If so, then one's purpose is what one is naturally inclined to do.

Purposes seem like a lot of work... I'm pretty lazy... — Wosret

That's another thing: Why does seeking a purpose seem like a chore to so many? Why do so many people look to others for their purpose (like God)? Why do so many people give other's the power to determine their purpose in life? Is it weakness? Is that why so many turn to religion for purpose?

I didn't take it as anti-gay, particularly, but I find the idea of people having children in order to find a purpose in life a little disturbing. It's asking a lot of one's children to make your (parental) life purposeful. — Bitter Crank

I don't see it as asking much of anything of one's children. The way I see it, the burden is all in the parents. They are the one's that must produce the genetic material and the environment in which a child can become a viable adult and contributor to society. It is the parents that determine what kind a person that the child becomes as an adult. That is the problem with most people today - that their parents didn't devote as much time and energy in raising them properly and they end up becoming self-centered or not having any self-worth. Most of society's problems, if not all of them, are a result of improper, or a lack of, parenting. The first years of life are crucial in designing a proper human being.

Nah. Just ridiculously antigay and advice that is useless to anyone who cannot have or decided not to have children. Come to think of it, probably everyone can ignore this utterly vapid advice. — Rich

To promote the idea that humans only purpose is to procreate falls in line with any anti-gay agenda. Beyond this, it is so hopelessly empty that is certainly can be quickly dismissed by anyone who doesn't intend to spend their life in bed and then ending it quickly once their procreation powers have dwindled. Ugh. I remember actually hearing this stuff in public school. — Rich

It seems that it is only you that took it that way. Even the gay person didn't take it that way. But then what do you expect from someone who takes offense with anything they disagree with - even when they aren't really disagreeing with the reasoning behind what was said because either they are too dense, or intellectually dishonest.

I have said these things numerous times on this forum, including to you directly. Ignoring it doesn't mean that I never said it.

Gays can procreate and have procreated. You can pass down your genetic material using some other method other than heterosexual sex, and gays are perfectly capable of raising children into viable and useful adults.

There is also the fact that we all share genes and are part of a gene pool. Our individual genes are only a fraction of the gene pool. So even adopting unwanted children (who are part of the same pool) and raising them as your own would be equivalent to procreating.

Procreation doesn't end when you can no longer get an erection. Sex and the subsequent birth are not the end of the procreating act. Raising the children into adults is the most time-consuming and the most difficult part of procreation.

Harry Hindu
as in, "one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" -- that sort of thing? — Bitter Crank

"Kneel!

Is this not simpler? Is this not your natural state? It is the unspoken truth of humanity - that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes you life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."

-Loki to the humans in the Avengers movie.

Did I stutter?

Word.

Up.

Although there is no such thing as a perfect system of government, I would quite like to know what form of government is the closest to being perfect? — Sigmund Freud

Me, ruling you all.

How do I find my purpose for life? — TheMagicSchool

Estsblish relationships with others and find one that you are willing to live and die for. Then procreate with them, creating more that you would live and die for. When you understand that your greatest legacy you could ever leave behind is your children, then you have found your purpose in life.

Detecting a face is being aware of the face. You are only aware of something that you detect.

There is an infinite regression of awareness. We are aware of being aware of being aware of being aware, etc. It is no different than a video camera looking back at its output, creating an infinite feedback loop. Computer programs can be designed with a recursive loop. Again, we simply need to make awareness an object to be aware of.

If you wish to measure someone's lack of delusion, just ask them how many unwelcome beliefs they have.