Streams are discrete, meaning that they aren't all experiencing one another at the same time. They have a subjective point of view, hence they have an identity. At one point I was an atom, experiencing the world as an atom, and then I was merged with other atoms to form a nervous system. — Dogbert

This is a non-answer. Once again, the question, and your lucky this is even being remotely humored, is as follows:

What unique properties do you have such that it makes sense to distinguish you from the rest of the universe? In other words, what makes it your stream of consciousness? — frank

If you don't know something just say you don't know it. Honesty is the only option at this point to save face.

my consciousness was elevated from commonplace matter — Dogbert

Most people generally don't believe 'commonplace matter' is conscious of itself. It responds to other matter, like any other matter does. But I would wait just a minute before we go around making friends with the magnets on our refrigerator and pondering what rights they should or should not have.

There is a point at which someone must consider if their luck can be more rationally explained by something other than coincidence, and I think becoming human far exceeds it. — Dogbert

I'm happy you consider yourself living a fortunate, privileged life. However, one nitpick. If that's alright. Isn't your argument better phrased as "what are the odds of human life developing from non-life" or perhaps something along the lines of how Earth seems to be perfectly suited for life and such seems to be something of a rarity as far as the known observable universe is concerned? :chin:

Mr. Gower would’ve lost his drugstore.
My brother would’ve drowned when he fell through the ice. — T Clark

Or, whoever this Mr. Gower is may've not wasted his time talking with you, earned an extra few sales and with the profit decided to buy a winning lottery ticket and would have had 10 drugstores by now.

And as well, perhaps, as an only child your brother would've been less socially inclined and never approached the ice to begin with.

See, you never know when it comes to hypotheticals. Such is the law of the land as far as philosophy is concerned.

I'd prefer to not have existed. — flannel jesus

Funny. Were it not for minds like yours, I'd have felt the same. :smile:

Sure every society debates good vs evil, it's popular. However, what qualifies as "good" in Kabul and Amsterdam can be quite different (since good is subjective individually and inter subjective collectively). — LuckyR

Well, why is it popular? Is everyone just confused and wrong? While possible, I'd wager there's a reason out of the thousands of societies across thousands of years across multiple continents, some never interacting with one another (or even never coming into contact with any other but their own) all managed to organically and independently reach the same conclusion. Something about it is intrinsic that is definable, whether we have succeeded in understanding it or simply fallen short of such a task.

If the ultimate highest Good man can ever understand is subjective, it might as well be used interchangeably with a word like "pleasing" or "enjoyable" or perhaps "socially and biologically advantageous". This way we can accurately say: "without 'good' (meaning any or all of those terms) society would collapse into anarchy and suffering (evil?) would abound, therefore being good is the right thing to do and what is good vs. what is not becomes self-evident."

I reckon it would be short of impossible to pin down an absolute Good outside of theist-oriented beliefs. That much I grant you.

We also associate qualities that society "likes" or yes perhaps even needs and would perish without as "good", of course. Wearing a fur coat outside in Kabul would be "foolish" and perhaps "wrong" in a shallow sense of the word, but it wouldn't be Wrong as in Evil. Just a bit silly. Whereas wearing the same in Amsterdam, depending on the season, would be "smart" and also "good", again in the shallow sense of the word. Of course, in both places, wearing the skin of a priest or holy man as a coat would likely be considered wrong, irrespective of any differences between the two places and peoples.

Point being, if "Good" really is "unknowable" other than by one's personal or social opinion, why do we even use it? Why not again words that most people don't realize they're using "Good" as a proxy for (I.E. "pleasing", "smart", "socially advantageous", etc.)?

It's common for moral objectivists to trot out low hanging fruit such as murdering babies when attempting to demonstrate their worldview, since it has a >99% agreement rate among "normal" folk. But ignore topics like welfare assistance which has a 40/60 split. — LuckyR

Well, is that any less valid of a place to start? Did you start learning math with advanced calculus or did you start learning what numbers are and that 2 + 2 = 4? The journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. We can't just reduce what we feel to be less than relevant as "low hanging fruit" without any real reason or rationale. Again, outside of theism, the only likely place one can find Morality outside of what one pleases would naturally have to be tied to biology and sociology: what proliferates healthy societies vs. what doesn't.

As an aside, the two topics are fairly distinct. In the latter, welfare assistance, there are clear and logically proven drawbacks such as dependence, laziness, no incentive to contribute to one's society, possible lack of purpose, possible risk of societal financial collapse or insolvency, etc. There are plenty of valid, rational, and above-all, logical (able to be proven on paper) concerns for both proponents and critics alike. Not so much for the first scenario. Few that come to mind, at least.

I take it you'd agree with this sentence: "There is no Good or Evil, just as there is no Right or Wrong; These are empty words that merely refer to mutually agreed upon social constructs rooted in biological and emotional realities and little else."

Actually your comments don't counter mine. — LuckyR

Well, sure, fair enough. Maybe all the actually "good" people who knew the "truth" that humanity would be better off dead either died off on their own or were killed (or otherwise made irrelevant), and we now live in a false global society where human life is evil yet we call it good. Sure. Why not. Makes about as much sense as anything else that goes on in this modern age.

I said "good" is subjective, you're saying a majority have (subjectively) agreed on some common meanings of "good". The two are compatible. — LuckyR

I'm reminded of a post by a wise user here. He says, sure, words don't exist until we create them and not only define but defend their meaning. Okay, that deeper observation was my part.

Nevertheless, why do we have, in most all societies, the concept of "good" and "evil". Why not "fun" versus "boredom" as the ultimate existential debate and dilemma for all minds intellectually inclined and otherwise? Because, someone, somewhere down the line, decided it so. And was able to defend and proliferate that dynamic throughout the ages, likely through force (or perhaps it was just that interesting and entertaining at the time, who could say). My point is, why don't we have another deeper concept that the majority of people, thinkers and non-thinkers alike, seem to consider as the ultimate "All there is" as far as concepts and human existence? Can you answer that?

Furthermore, if we know for a fact the only being that can process, accept, understand, and act as "good" while knowing what "good" is and of course what the inverse is, if that being were to die, than "good" dies with it. Does it not? Therefore, human life and that which proliferates it must be "good", lest all "good" cease to exist..

Ah, see what I did there. Tricky topic. But go on, I await your reply. :grin:

Hard to say. Apparently, World War I (and as a result World War II) started over a ham sandwich. (Not really, I mean, honestly, probably. But to avoid public shame of the human race was probably artificially turned into an "urban legend". Not that it did much good.)

Nevertheless, it's interesting. You never know how far our tiny ripples that are our desires and actions in the sea of reality might end up reaching and what they may knock up against. Just enough to cause an action one could never fathom. Snowball effect, yes?

It’s pitchforks at dawn again, I’m afraid. — Punshhh

I feel you vastly — and do I mean, vastly — underestimate the laziness and complacency of the average American voter. No, I take that back. It's not subject, or rather limited, to an invented term that has no real meaning other than socially. It's the human condition. Maybe an off metaphor but, water takes the path of least resistance. Humans are 70% water. We evolved with a natural (many would argue healthy) sense of fear, which if acted upon and in unison can lead to such. But the mind always seeks homeostasis, or a sense of wellness even when there is no rational element to be found. We will learn to love, or at the very least become accepting toward, our bad choices and predicaments, as foolish and blatantly obviously poor as they are. See the hedonic treadmill. With a positive spin, it's the enduring human spirit to endeavor on. Otherwise, it's a sort of healthy delusion with evolutionary benefit. It's why we can never be happy, not for very long, unless we know there is someone or something unhappier or less fortunate than ourselves, we'll invent a system where such is so, often based on real and relevant enough premises. Or, we'll simply declare one outside of the reality of the situation altogether.

This reminds me of a religious "parable" or metaphor or, something.

"The Long Spoons".

Six people are chained to a chair that is also chained to the floor and basically unable to move. Or wait, some demon made it so everything is like 5 times longer than it has to be, or something. Anyway everybody has long spoons for some reason and that's all they can use to eat and so if they try to feed themselves, they will fail to lift the food into their mouths, and thus starve. But! If they feed each other, every not only lives but thrives.

So, all that business aside. As the above poster reminds us, we have to pick a side, per se. Is it "right" that humanity lives? Would it be better to for us all to die, by any way possible? Should we all just randomly run to the largest most destructive weapon we can access and kill as many people as possible? No. At least, probably not. Most of society would consider this psychotic, homicidal, and "wrong".

And that's an opinion, perhaps. But it's what we agree upon. So therefore, life is good, and that which facilitates life is good. Anyone who has access to a cliff, or body of water, or even knife who chooses not to end their life, essentially agrees with such and thus this concept remains their established baseline of "good" and "right", contrary to the above post by @LuckyR. Well, not contrary, just, simply put, terms are stipulated and therefore we have a solid, immovable and more or less absolute foundation to work with. Anyone who doesn't agree, would logically not be alive at this point, so, anything from that school of thought or ideological persuasion can effectively be dismissed for all intents and purposes going forward.

I don't see the relevance. If the seed fails in producing a tree it demonstrates its own faultiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course. But my point is sometimes we jump the gun, per se. Some flowering plants take hundreds of years to produce fruit. People don't live hundreds of years. So, by all apparent rational sense, you could be like "oh look this plant doesn't do anything" when in reality you're dead wrong. Literally. :lol:

Come on you should know this stuff. This isn't elementary school.

You know, when a method fails in its capacity to reach the desired end, it demonstrates its own faultiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

A tree produces a seed in order to produce another tree. If you just look at the seed and say "oh that's not a tree, obviously it failed let's destroy this tree" one quickly notices an error in judgement. Belief systems call this arrogance or pride. Society calls this impatience and imprudence. Science calls this just being wrong. Remember that.

I have zero idea what you’re talking about. — Wayfarer

The average person needs to be governed.

If people did a good job in doing so on their own without "authority", people would trust their most valuable possession (which for most is one's child) with any random member of said society. Yet few people (basically nobody) in any democracy does. That's what I'm talking about.

I feel you're being more ideological or sentimental than logical in your reply, considering you seem to be a fair amount more intelligent than I, which is fine. But for anybody else, the logical observation stands unopposed.

As I said, people are naturally flawed and so should not be allowed to unilaterally act as something they're not, that something being lords or forms of monarchy. That said, surely democracy has intrinsic value other than "well at least these horrible things happening over there aren't happening over here". I dunno. Just thought you'd address that first and foremost is all. No big deal.

While I'm not absolutely certain of every person in every situation, I'm fairly certain most citizens in places like Russia or China live there by choice. That is to say, provided they are not poor and have average means, can leave anytime to go anywhere. If I'm mistaken about that, I apologize. But in relation to the topic, well, to put it simply "different strokes for different folks." So again, a true supporter and believer of democracy ought be able to defend something they believe superior with something other than "well at least it's not like X, Y, or Z" without much effort, is all.

only one of whom is a democratically-elected leader. Russia and China are both authoritarian dictatorships — Wayfarer

I mean, if you can't honestly say you'd trust your young kid alone with one person picked at random from your society, how can you really say you trust in people to govern their own affairs. You can't.

Not to make it seem ordinary humans should be allowed monarchy, they absolutely should not. Bad genetics that lead to corruption. But that said, you should value an apple for all it is and not just because it looks or smells good, that is to say, defend it with substance and not just "oh at least it's not this or that."

“Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.” — Hanover

So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically.

Matter exists. Planets exist. If you have an atypical definition of "the world", I suppose we can just go about redefining any word vague enough if we so please. What of it?

He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness. — Hanover

I think "our idea of the world" would be best suited in place of "our world". The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, doesn't exist, or may come to exist. It should go without saying "my opinion" or "what I think to be a fact because it seems like it" are very different concepts that do not necessarily have anything to do with the physical matter and constitutional makeup of the universe, let alone how other people may view such.

I just don't see the basic elementary idea of "one's opinion" or "worldview" coming anywhere near traversing such depths of the metaphysical or anything remotely profound. Sure, most people fail to realize that. But as far as academia is concerned, this is, or at least I would hope should be, common knowledge.

This quote is being taken out of context. — L'éléphant

This (if accurate) is likely the most important post in this thread (in relation to what it is that inspired the OP, at least).

Well that's definitely a valid (if not fringe and unique) counter-example of such. I suppose not unlike some earlier culture's practice of neck elongation or lip rings, etc. and other forms of body modification.

One might argue foot binding is a form of beautification by minimization or (simplification), not unlike how the mind of most all persons may find a modern rounded smartphone more "attractive" than a blocky 90s model clunker. Perhaps this has roots in biology where the (male?) mind is attracted or otherwise especially observant of curves as they are often present in the desirable female form. That of course has little to no relation to foot binding, other than perhaps large feet on a female is generally seen as unattractive or perhaps even "mannish"? What do you think? Maybe or too far of a reach?

Beauty is subjective, not objective. — DifferentiatingEgg

True but I find it beyond plausible that mammalian brains have ingrained biological mechanisms that result in a universal (albeit large and scattered) pattern or tendency to prefer certain types and physical proportions of, not just faces, but anything observable in general. "Vastness" is not a physical quality in the way traditional beauty as far as objects are, but we are generally universally "taken away" by things such as overlooking a cliff or a wide valley. We may not call it "beautiful" in specific detail, but it certainly provokes a unique yet consistent response in the brain of not just humans but animals as well.

Are we not universally mesmerized by things such as a kaleidoscope? Do the vast majority of people find super models or such as "attractive"?

No, but you're right. My whole premise is a bit of an unintentional derail. Beauty is not the same thing as physical attractiveness. However, you and I would be in the minority as far as those who realize that, I'd wager. :wink:

So yeah, a definition I've given before, beauty being conformity to one's expectations (or perhaps simply what one is used to) is a subjective objectivity, of a sort. No? :confused:

Beauty is symmetry. Conformity. If you weren't put off by jagged rocks or something otherwise seemingly unpredictable, you likely died. If you weren't put off with someone who's face was deformed (often but of course not always a sign of genetic abnormality and likelihood of other unwellness), you likely didn't end up reproducing at much, if at all.

It's all the same sickness. Sorry, "reality" of the world.

I can't help you here. — Banno

You can, easily. Yet choose not to. Like always.

As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac. — Tom Storm

Mm, surely you see there is ample room for a bit of irony or "reversing the argument" (whichever seems more apt) here.

Challenge: reply first without clicking 'Reveal'.

Why can't a car have 3 wheels and why wouldn't a broken car still be a car? — Hanover

Why wouldn't a car of any state or component missing be anything but a "piece of metal?" Because a knife is a piece of metal. You can't expect someone to buy or barter for a "piece of metal" without some sot of deeper and thorough designation, could you?

This is interesting, really. Is a pure metal shell of a car with no furnishing, engine, or internal infrastructure a car? Average person would say no (or would they?). Is a car with all those things but that doesn't start or function a car? Average person would say yes and of course call that a "broken car" or a "lemon" or a "clunker," But it's interesting because while one is considered a car that fails to perform the function of a car (yet can be made or altered to do so) the same is true of the shell of the car without any other parts. So explain that, eh?

Aristotle again. — Banno

Your rebuttal is valid. Above me head, perhaps.

But it doesn't change the fact that it's possible the person you're replying to is introducing a concept or argument not specifically addressed by the argument or belief system you refer by name of one person.

You pass it off as if it were so simple, something so casual, like a child commenting on how something far beyond his capability yet is enjoying such, soon to be taken away due to lack of appreciation, would make. Why? Why do this? Why not just explain it in adequate and sufficient detail? You're clearly capable of such. This low IQ frat-boy type of response of "No duh you should know it" is beneath you. I know it and so do you. So why not just explain it properly.

I too see room for improvement. What is a "thing", in the simplest most "thingly" sense. Something that is noticeably or observably distinct from its environment. Take a bucket of paint. The smallest subatomic molecule of paint is in fact a unique object from the next molecule right next to it. It has its own "system". per se. that, while exactly identical to the molecule next to it, is theoretically possible to either be or become different, whether or not by external influence. That said, no human person will be able to distinguish the two and see anything more than "some paint in a bucket."

Reminds me of a different topic of "what is art" which led to one opinion of "that which is distinct from its environment and has been made so intentionally." Ooh, that's good. I feel that to be of great relevance. Not to toot my own horn here but, this is great stuff. Hope y'all are paying attention.

Edit: For context, the quoted user made a (now strangely deleted) post commenting on his (hard to say) either disapproval or genuine sense that the definition can be improved as far as the 2nd post on this topic by @Baden

does philosophy have a definition of a system — Pieter R van Wyk

Established, mainstream philosophy? Most assuredly. Such definitions can be found strewn about this discussion.

All philosophies in general? Some do, some don't.

A system, in general, is two or more entities or "points" that operate in recognition of one another with the intent to perform or otherwise reach an expected outcome or function. They can be simple, take "the buddy system" or "the honor system." They can be complex such as the human immune system or what is commonly referred to as "The System" (ruling power or influence in governed society).

What they all have in common is they either handle or process expected (and often unexpected) input, influence, material, or resource and attempt to output a certain desired outcome, result, or product.

There are also inherently or perhaps intentionally chaotic systems that are somewhat of the opposite affect. Say psychological warfare, for example. The goal of that system is disruption, chaos, confusion, and decrease in moral. It doesn't matter how it's done, yet it still demands or at least attempts to reach a single final outcome or product, that product being chaos and disarray. Not unlike a heckler at a political rally or entertainment venue.

We often don't even know we're part, or otherwise performing the functions perfectly, of many systems. A system can be physical, such as your bodily functions. A system can also be ideological, such as systems of belief, including karma or divine punishment. A great much can be said in further detail to expand the definition or idea of a system or systems, but what's important before attempting to do so is to establish what the "bare bones" definition or criteria for such are, which I believe I have done for you quite nicely.

Think back to your first memory; the very first and earliest memory you can remember.

Do you remember much about your thoughts and sense of consciousness (or self/awareness) at the time, or do you mostly remember yourself just being there, almost as if you were an observer?

I reckon it's the latter. So that means, different beings capable of consciousness can have varying states of consciousness. Compare a young child capable of basic conversation and decision making and a full grown intellect such as yourself. You're both conscious, but your depth or recognition of your own consciousness is simply far greater almost to the point of it being an entirely unrecognizable or distinct depth and level of existence. Same with someone mentally handicapped versus someone "neurotypical." It's also possible they may be able to experience the same things you do but for whatever physical or other reason are unable to express or share that they do.

Kilograms. That is how we do physics. — I like sushi

Telegram from the future. He will reply something along the lines of "weight is not mass, neither is size, necessarily". And likely how mass is merely a phenomenon of gravity or some business like that.

How do you measure a 6 inch solid stone and a 6' empty box? There are dimensions and weight. And the two computed together do offer more or less the mass of such, but there's no reliable measurement because it wouldn't mean anything effectual or useful but for physical beings in a physical world of elements that only care about size and weight.

It's like stepping off into the void into a world where everything is different. It's just not something many people do because, by all observable information, would be a waste of time.

For example, antimatter is a thing that exists, mostly in space. It basically defies all definition of matter, while at the same time technically obeying all the rules, just, per se, it's own special version of said rules.

Still, antimatter is a thing that exists so it's not "nothing" as in lack of something, per se, therefore, in some usages of the word, is still matter that cannot be measured by traditional means.

I did say;
‘ I don’t hold beliefs other than what beliefs are necessary to live a life.’ — Punshhh

That much should have been unmistakable. For that I apologize. You must understand, I rarely have the gall to interject myself into such established arguments (60 pages and counting!) unless, shall we say, the wine glass has been broken out. :smile:

That said, however. That said. This sentence of yours is interesting. One might consider such a sentence to be superfluous considering, surely, there are people alive, perhaps even living quite well, who don't hold the beliefs you do. Are there not? It's just interesting, is all. Not to deviate, but only an interesting short thought experiment in the context that it relates to the overarching theme of the discussion, of course.

So, I suppose, not to nitpick, but for debate for debate sake, one might ask, what are these beliefs "necessary to live a life" you hold, specifically and in detail? Are you certain all people living life hold them as well? Could they not have different interpretations that fundamentally change the idea of such concepts from your own? :chin:

Also beliefs are intellectually defined and held positions, or loyalties. — Punshhh

Loyalty, eh. Heh. Sorry. such terms distract me due to the complex history of my own life experience. I might say, for some, loyalty exists only in the form of distraction from willfully and intentionally placed fear, often from the same person who claims to relieve such. Ah, no matter. Ignore that. For now.

I am relegating such things to the chitta chatta of my mind while continuing to go about living my life. — Punshhh

Aren't we all, more or less? :grin:

I have tried a variety of practices and understandings from schools and took only what fitted my path and kept the remainder at arms length. So don’t adhere to a belief system. — Punshhh

Au contraire my friend. Is this not a belief system in and of itself? "Momentary (or perhaps rather conditional) utilitarianism"? Sure this might be watered down or reduced to mere "common sense" and "logic" itself. But it remains a system, whether ingrained to all intelligent, thinking beings or naturally adopted by such out of necessity, it remains a system in its own right and of its own merit.

None of which are helpful or even relevant, sadly. — Baden

The man with the golden touch who would be king in one world, would be but another lowly bricklayer in another whose streets are paved with such.

I'm so grateful to be alive at this time, to be in the middle of this epochal event. — RogueAI

Well to be fair, one could likely point to any innovation (or at least, the localized introduction of an innovation) in any reasonable "generational period" of 50 years as something truly "revolutionary" and groundbreaking. In 50 years, assuming we haven't blown ourselves up yet and irradiated the world beyond repair, which is a risky bet all things considered, they'll be saying the same thing. Just as those 100 years ago said about the refrigerator. And those 100 years before that about the steam engine. And 100 years before that about the pistol or the first vaccine. And 100 years before that with the toilet. And so and and so on and blah. It just gets tiresome. Everything is amazing. Let's leave it at that.

Are we saying these Ai's then are like school children? — RogueAI

No, I suppose not. :grin:

However, one might find value in the following analogy, be it "weak" or not. An AI or LLM is essentially a brain waiting to be trained (filled with knowledge). Consciousness in human beings is essentially a brain. Perhaps one may liken AI or LLM to a brain without a body. Schoolchildren have brains waiting to be filled with knowledge. So the two have at least that much in common, one might say? :confused:

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Deep. :100:

As far as armchair science goes, this is top notch. :razz: :grin: :strong:

--

Also, to OP:

You and me are in the same boat as far as being overwhelmed with some of the stuff that gets posted here and the discussions brought about as a result. So don't even sweat that for a second.

I'd say a good 80% of topics here are over my head (at least my comfortable, casual level of confidence to have a debate in, if nothing else). I mostly enjoy reading the exchanges with the hope of learning something I didn't know before. You'll notice most of my posts on actual discussions are inquiries seeking clarification to a point or to bring attention to a possible fallacy in one's argument (which it's usually not but rather my own misunderstanding).

Something I'd say is true as far as this place goes is, you can always ask questions about something if you're genuinely curious about it, don't understand, or want to gain a better sense of understanding or insight. Most of the heavy hitters here are fairly nice and do reply to novice questions, even in the midst of heated discussions. Just be prepared for the obligatory "I don't really see how that's relevant", usually prefacing a detailed and simplified explanation as to why their point stands and how your concern does not invalidate or otherwise put their argument into question.

But aside from that, most people here are very charitable and understanding as far as their time and intellect goes into explaining things if you simply ask with polite inquisitiveness or curiosity.

If those posts are of better quality than us humans here (and they probably would be), isn't human philosophical discussion a bit of mockery? — RogueAI

Is the teacher who brought about a pupil who rivals or even surpasses his or her own intelligence a failure?

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people. — Outlander

I don't understand how clearer I can make that sentence.

The site owner doesn't seem to like AI taking the place of genuine, organic human discussion and discourse, despite its many imperfections and tendency to lead to less than productive exchanges.

Frankly I enjoy your presence here, as well as your posts and discussions. But that's nothing to do with the question you've asked.

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people.

"If you can't explain your idea to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- (some dead guy)

Take a certain thread that one lone OP keeps posting on on the front page that has been told multiple times makes no sense yet only replies with insults. Stuff like that, is why.

Males tend to prefer people who resemble mommy and females tend to prefer people who resemble daddy (or sometimes, in the event of loss, their respective ideas of such). And of course vice-versa as far as one's parents and therefore sensory development is concerned.

Beyond that, evolution (or if a theist, the Curse Upon Man), made it so those who are unfamiliar, do not conform, or are otherwise bizarre, ended up reproducing less until given societies ended up more or less uniform and conforming to one another.

It's really not that exciting nor complicated beyond that.

Some discover this and are able to transcend it, whilst most others will inevitably fail to. And that's just how it is.

You are dismissing my framing — Illuminati

I've done nothing of the sort. We call this the classic 'Qualia' argument. One can have 1,001 views of how we process the 'color' that is commonly referred to as 'red.' One can have a million views as to what the experience of watching a sunset is. It's no longer about right or wrong, it's true to you, and that's fine for you. But when you expect it to be something of worth to another, it requires pure logistical or otherwise practical, feasible, and pragmatic content. At the end of the day, red is red, and a sunset is a sunset. It does, in fact, have a virtually infinite number of definitions or meanings to other persons. I'm simply underscoring the fact you don't seem to have any personal conviction or distinct definition of the term that hasn't already existed and would exist whether you were involved in it or not.

If you bring new truth to the world, then good. This truth, that has become independent of you and who you are, should be allowed to benefit the world, and you sitting by silently rewarded with nothing but the gratitude that any good person should have by doing so. People who seek recognition, power, and the like, are often the least who deserve it, the worst of the worst. And if this is not you, fine. My (highly warranted) scrutiny is simply misplaced, and you should think nothing of it. Yet you do. Why is that? Only you can answer. And I doubt it will be anything close to what you reply here for all to see.

You are gaslighting my passion — Illuminati

Buddy, I don't care about you or your passion. (I'm just kidding they just teach us to say that in law enforcement). But seriously, let me make this quite simple. This is a philosophy forum. We discuss, debate, attack, and praise ideas. Not people. For all intents and purposes, you don't even exist. Can your ego understand that? If not, you're in an arena high above your current level of ability, shall we say. And it can be dangerous if you continue to dwell here.

Cant imagine how hard life must be in that drunk head of yours. — Illuminati

I can't even get drunk anymore these days, honestly. Ah, I almost miss those days. Almost. Nothing like waking up in your underwear at a place you don't remember falling asleep at to scare you straight. I'm a strict beer man these days. Nothing more. Nothing less. :grin:

I mean furthermore, let's look at what a random person would gather from this little interaction we had. First, you know nothing about me other than I mentioned I had a drink last night. And this small bit of knowledge, in your mind, feels it necessary to attack me as some sort of habitual offender when in reality all you know is that I did one thing one time. This is what your so-called philosophy and view of the world has led you to. Misery. Hostility. Just, everything mankind wishes to avoid. Attacking people at the slightest reason to do when the slightest bit of resource or "ammunition" is available. It just doesn't support your argument if you're so right yet remain so petty, aggressive, and hostile toward someone who, supposedly, by your claim, is just wrong, ignorant, and mistaken. Good people help people who are lost and need guidance. And instead, you attack them. Why? I'll tell you why. Because It's a disease. A plague. This is what your so-called truth and belief causes you to be like? Hard pass, mate. Hard pass. I disagree fully. Wordsmithing or even right or wrong or not, if this is you and how you respond to those who question and wish to know truth, it should be banned from all public venue and burned in a pile as the rubbish it is. Real talk.

On a serious note, once you abandon this nonsense, may your soul, if there is such a thing, be saved. I cannot wait until the final realm, where all of us, not just you, or I, but all of us, are free from the illusions and lies that seem so truthful and permanent in this realm we call life and reality. :halo:

In all seriousness, OP. You are loved. By me, if no one else. I hope you remember this. :heart:

the broader metaphysical structure Im proposing. — Illuminati

It's an old concept, mate. "You" are not proposing anything. You're speaking of concepts that existed long before you, and would exist even if you were never born. You need to understand that. It's not personal, people just don't agree with the idea in the context and "holy light" you attribute to it.

It doesn't mean it's not a sound idea. It doesn't mean it's not right. All those who don't hold the same view you do believe is, there's much more to the world and life and existence than what you currently believe. That's all. It's very simple. Not provocative. Not rude. Just a mere difference in opinion.

If you were so confident and faithful in your idea, you would feel no frustration in others ignoring or condemning it as false, only pity. Unfortunately, every person believes what they do or think is right, otherwise, they would not be doing or thinking it. So the natural biological chain of events occur in one's brain when one's idea of reality is challenged or disregarded, or yes even disproved, refusal to accept evidence to the contrary. Which is not necessarily childlike and illogical, perhaps they're wrong and the evidence they have shown, while factual, will inevitably be superseded by new evidence. This is literally the history of science itself.

You're too emotionally invested in an idea that seems to make emotion and belief irrelevant. People do this all the time for a sense of peace and stability in this world. And for those who can sniff that out, those such as myself, and many other posters here, it just doesn't support the underlying premise. That's all I can say and wish for you to understand as far as those who doubt or simply disagree with what you believe to be true.

To be precise, he did not say that, but rather the following: “A human being is part of the whole we call the Universe—part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and his feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, which restricts us to our personal desires and to the affection of a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”"

Now this is the benefit, freedom from the illusion cast upon us by our own brains. What I said regarding space is true, the same goes for time and other claims I made. These things are not composed of what they constitute, colours, distances, time are illusions and today we can prove it by using science and logic. Absolutelly no reason not to do the same with philosophy when it has already been done in the past and was regarded as top tier theology by some. — Illuminati

I just read this again (likely for the first time). I must have glossed over it in the heat of debate.

This reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: "All men are but actors on a stage, they play their parts, and have their entrances and have their exits." (paraphrased)

But while there may be a good amount of truth in the idea that "his experience of himself, his thoughts, and feelings are separate from the rest but is merely a delusion" there remain many reasonable objections and arguments to this blanket assertion.

A person raised from birth in a starving country who knows nothing but war, poverty, and suffering, who sees death and horror daily and becomes accustomed to it, will certainly have a different experience of "himself" and the idea of the world itself than someone raised in wealthy family who's never seen a day of honest work in their life. Or, actually, someone who is mentally deficient or just really "non self-contemplative" (goes through life without a care) versus someone who meticulously examines every thought and aspect of their being. So, one's experience of himself is in fact quite different, depending on the person and circumstances that surround or otherwise affect them.

I've often said, we all have the same base desires, fears, and emotions. You become angry when there is something that frustrates us. We become happy when there is a source that brings us joy, whatever that idea may be, for some it's a child strolling, for others it's something very morbid. But yes, joy is joy. Our brain receives and responds or rather disperses the elements into our body that gives us these base, elemental, and universal feelings (joy, pain, fear, etc.). That much is correct. But one cannot reduce the human experience and life itself into something so simply, some sort of cookie cutter, prepackaged formulae that fits every single individual, every place, every time, regardless of circumstance. Can you? I don't think so.

It's all in good fun. I really enjoy this discussion we've had, and for that I thank you. I apologize for some of my less than intellectual opinions expressed and unwarranted frustrations. I drink a lot. Not really, just, when I do, I tend to keep to myself to avoid... less than moral decisions. And so, the internet, specifically this fine venue I cannot seem to stay away from. :sweat:

Well than you can surely give them again and provide how they specifically verify that which is otherwise a random shout in the arena of fact.

You posted a thread. I've been here for years, with thousands of posts. You have... a few dozen. How nice. Surely such confidence asserts itself by virtue and effort, lest it become arrogance and silliness.

Yes, other people and what they have to say are nice. But, you might find, one day. It's just you and Another. Shall we call him.

A man, ignorant, cannot come up to you and ask a simple question and get a straight answer?

This is the overwhelming "weirdness" of this entire thread.

You keep pointing to this and that and that and this, and I'm sure enough to answer a question. But, it's inhumane. This a discussion forum where if one asks a question one can ask to clarify and hope to expect a human response. And you deny that. Why? It just.. doesn't make any type of sense.

See, I swear I'm not trying to invoke the ire of any mod (or worse, the site owner) but it seems like the entire keyword of this thread (this so-called, unable to be defined by OP's own admission: "One") may be equated with something like "a rubbery potato." And we can just continue indefinitely attributing concepts that are naturally ever-reaching onto this "random rubbery potato" and be able to discuss it for all time. He refused to define it. Other than copypasta quotes that seem to align with intellect and philosophy, yet when questioned, just turns into an attack. It's kinda not cool. And spammy.