You wrote:"The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart..."
Is that an "or" or an "of" (ability of nature). — Nickolasgaspar

Or. Which does confusingly imply there's a state of non-consciousness compared to a consciousness that one must heh consciously "activate" whereas nature is just the simple tendency to with or without said intent. I suppose such wording leaves both bases covered.

I'd rather be treated like a dumb animal than judged as a evil human and treated accordingly. — Yohan

That's not what he asked. Dumb animals get eaten or if deemed 'dangerous' by humans are put down. 'Evil' humans are either legally liable as criminals or not. Though mob rule and even individual vendettas do offer a plethora of equally undesirable outcomes.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan

Heh, yeah there's this one culture called humanity. I've seen much worse happen to people who commit adultery, and not just toward the women either. I suppose it may support your argument but, you don't often see that in the animal kingdom. It's overshadowed by the constant stench of indiscriminate death.

I notice you capitalize 'man', giving some sort of recognizable distinction. Others do this by allocating the belief of a soul. You have much in common with those you wish to differentiate yourself from.

Fair enough. Let's go beyond an example and see, explore the phenomenon as you say. What's your definition (and relevant examples) of what is and what is not consciousness and what is compatible if not identical and what is contradictory to my own. I'll start I suppose.

What is consciousness:

The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart and distinct from other beings able to distinguish some sense of time and therefore "life" or "reality (ie. past, present, future). With the personal stipulation of being organic. Not all agree will agree on that last part

What is conscious:

- A mentally unafflicted human person of reasonable age
- Intelligent animals

What is not conscious:

- A highly intelligent AI system following currently non-existent and hypothetical coding that just so happens to perfectly mimic the human brain and its functions
- A single celled organism such as amoeba

Oh come now, how can we or at least expect others to identify with, let alone vote for someone or something they deem 'non relatable'.

It may be a shite show but at least the performers are entertaining enough to detract from the hopeless nature of what is or at least could easily be. Easy counter though, it's a downward and destructive spiral of who can exhibit/inspire the most immoral and unscrupulous behavior in not just themselves but in others while still being able to look at the man in the mirror at the end of the day. Opposing view, which is hard for the non-theist (and even then) to grasp is, we may miss it if/when it's ever gone.

Well written, can't say I came across anything disagreeable.

Did they use a telescope to see the neighbors down the street? Did they see the neighbors down the street holding a telescope? Was it the neighbors next-door who were seen down the street, or was it the neighbors who stay down the street? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Not sure if this is still "bayesian", admittedly I'm not familiar with the term, but context is key. Take the sentence in your example "I saw the neighbors down the street with a telescope". What are we talking about? Was it some stranger who just walks up to me and blurts that out? Or were we discussing our shared interest in astronomy or perhaps living in an age of heliocentric prosecution? Depending on the answer, the context becomes quite clear, at least reasonable enough to assume.

Every piece of knowledge we have was prefaced by a question we or someone before us once asked. Questions make the world go 'round. If you can't ask questions about a statement, it's safe to say the source knows far less than they attempt to present. Kinda like an intelligent bird that can "speak".

How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least.

Example, you know what you wrote and believe it to be coherent, as do I. That's well enough and much better even than if your post was about something like say, chocolate cake and it's gravitational affect on chickens, for example.

I think he's channeling the attitude and spirit of one Jonathon Swift, author of "A Modest Proposal". Sometimes one needs to see the extreme of their belief to see not just the unseen potential volatility of it, but the potential strength of an opposing one. Which interestingly enough doesn't necessarily change the rationale of either. Key word being necessarily.

Edit: Energy is life. Active vs. inactive. Kinetic vs. potential. One demands attention as it is of the here and now, reality even. Though the other could easily end up being the attention of demand for an entire lifetime.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people? — Xtrix

Never. Ever since humanity replaced geocentric theory for heliocentric theory, there was nothing but horrid weapons of war and disease. Nobody ever got hurt (or at least disintegrated and their homes irradiated) when we listened to our religious overlords.

If you feel like you have to "be something" at certain times but not others you're simply not what you're trying to be and are an actor. So act as you deem necessary. The world is a stage some say, and after all the show must go on.

I'll re-interpret this as something along the lines of "when to not be a douche", you have your opinions and others have theirs. Personally I happen to know foul behavior only appeases and attracts foul people into your life and only a fool would be taken back at the realization that what you put out and the people who deem degeneracy to be acceptable end up being degenerates and foul in your own life are your own just desserts, ordered at a premium with the lion's share of your time and mind. Though, I suppose there's exceptions. All warfare is based on deception after all. You can't trim the diseased branches of a larger system from beneath it now can you.

In A. "they" refers to the protestors, in B. it refers to the councillors. We know this because of our experience of the world. It's an example of something a computer couldn't know. — Daemon

They only refer to the protestors and councilors respectively, because the father, or author, of the sentence determined so. Or I suppose "it simply happened that way" or as you say, that's just how "the world" (generally) works.. There are numerous scenarios, one of which has been posted previously, where it could easily be the opposite.

The same (likely) context recognition could be achieved, albeit haphazardly, with a 'word map' database.

Councilor = government, order, ruler, leader, society, peace, stability

Protestor = worker, grievance, anger, rebellion, uprising, turmoil, injustice

The more general words (violence) matched with context specific words (they), that happen to match a subsequent 'word map' of words relevant/associated with each party or subject(s) can more often than not determine which party to apply said word to. It would take a great deal of finagling, sure. But it's doable. Not with any laser accuracy, of course. Which I suppose was your point.

What exactly are we discussing and for what purpose? I do fail to see the profoundness or any possible fruit of this topic. Computers, AI =/= human comprehension. I doubt there was any disagreement at any point.

Would you perhaps mind explaining it then, seeing as you now hold the minority viewpoint of 'understanding' in this discussion?

These are different meanings. In A the councillors advocate violence and B they fear violence (which has two meanings in and of itself). — I like sushi

Hm, I can see the point. Why not:

Out of fear of violence, the councilors refused to allow the protestors, whom are known to advocate violence, to demonstrate.

Or something of the like. Granted not everyone speaks casually in such a manner so it is useful for any application that plans to be relevant to be able to recognize as much variation in sentence construction as possible. Which as has been noted, is quite difficult.

Edit: And of course technically both sentences can mean either or, with a little thought. Granted we know and should assume the same meanings as in the OP, but there's nothing that prevents the opposite.

Democratic governments are created by and for the people. Yet we still talk about how the government (as an entity) treats its people. — Wheatley

Human nature cannot be escaped so easily, unfortunately, as your point reminds us of.

Business are like governments because they both act like an entity with goals different than individual people. — Wheatley

I think there's a Star Trek episode that covers this.. "the needs of the many" or some business like that.

to call these entities "people" is a bit of a stretch. — Wheatley

Again, unless it's an automated and unmonitored system, people are wholly involved in every benefit, gain, inconvenience, and grievance, though we'd like to think otherwise. We as frail beings subject to the whims of nature and biology have to invent a boogeyman of sorts, someone - anyone - who's not the man in the mirror. And that's why he'll never be caught.

Naturally, to understand what is one must first be intimately acquainted with what isn't. The first step is understanding whatever is can become what isn't. The second is understanding you know very little, if anything at all. Observations of current circumstance are not knowledge but simple consciousness, which as we know, is volatile and its state subject to change.

But they are not people. — Wheatley

Neither are these sentences, yet we know they're personal. Created by and for persons. Your point (what I assume to be at least) is not lost on me, I understand the "less than personal" environment that successful businesses tend to operate from (simply because the next guy who maybe spends a little less time being all buddy buddy with every single person who steps foot in the door and more time selling product and maximizing efficiency may make it in the black while the other guy remains in the red) the fact remains unless you're selling a product or service to a robot and/or employing them, it is in fact all about the people at the end of the day. Whether or not you "dehumanize" them as some would say to a paper sheet of demographics and numbers or not.

There are people that lack some of the most basic needs in life while others have abundance to sustain thousand of lifes all for themselves. — Hermeticus

Can't take it with you. Lost are those who call circumstance reality. Contrary to popular belief, you actually can make a horse drink. Though it usually drowns.

I was focusing more on businesses and how they relate to 'people'. — Wheatley

Well unless we're referring to some science fiction artificial intelligence.. business by definition is an endeavor by people. So how does it not relate to people becomes the question. Free market. If you're not relevant, you don't bring in new customers. It's pretty simple really.

It doesn't matter what I nor anyone thinks, what matters is the reality that we are "employed" that is to say indentured servants to our bodies and biological needs. Food, water, shelter, entertainment, interaction even. There are more people then resources. You either beat each other to death or work together and treat others as equals to address these needs. There are no other options, aside from enslaving others. How is this a socially acceptable debate?

What makes a good poem? A fanciful, grandiose, magniloquent assortment of words, a cornucopia of kitsch and familiar sounds we call rhymes that connect to our primal mindsets of pattern recognition? No, it tugs at the very strings that make us human! The heart, some say. The soul? This is for the reader to decide. Slow and steady may win the race but more often than not short and sweet decide the deciders.

I.
Thy.
Lie.
Why?
Cry.
Sigh.
Ply.
Tie.
Fly.
Try.
Buy.
Vie.
Sly?
Pie.
I.

Modern life in a nutshell.

Due to nature itself and an advanced organism's ability to adapt, we'll never know it would seem. Probably. Though I wouldn't call 'ignorance' a defining feature of 'evil' as it is commonly understood.

Interestingly enough humans cannot be carnivores, exclusively, due to the noted occurrence of scurvy when without fruits or vegetables for prolonged periods, yet the main argument for vegetarianism is "not eating animal products" but that conveniently does not include breast milk for obvious reasons, while socially breast milk is not an "animal product" is surely is product from a mammal, so depending on how rigid your beliefs are we still do in fact require food product from mammals.

Ready for the reductio to this view? Just think of all the things our ancestors believed necessary for their survival: world conquest, human sacrifice, slavery, etc. The list goes on. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yeah but belief isn't fact, people died from starvation and malnourishment without eating animals. No one died because some empire didn't conquer Antarctica, a man wasn't thrown into a volcano, or a people weren't enslaved, though they may have believed that, it doesn't make it so whereas yes eating is literally a biologic need that if unaddressed is more or less immediately fatal.

More broadly though, I think it has to do with size. No one cares about an ant or a roach or a flea, but a great blue whale or bear even (though the hostility is a factor) is so majestic it's an objectionable tragedy that will get you scolded on social media. Again, more psychology. Kind of ridiculous but it seems to be a combination of observable intelligence, size, and being able to relate to. You can hear a dog or cat whimper or scream in pain, as do we. Something that can't communicate in the way we do just seems like a lesser being. It also helps if said creature doesn't try or is unable to kill you.

There is no ‘universal’ meaning that isn’t subject to differing interpretations due to differing subjective and contextual items. — I like sushi

Ah, but now did you not just do the same? 'There is' harkens to the name of the biblical God of the Old Testament 'I Am', ala absolute facts even if stating that facts themselves are relative ie. subjectivity. You seem to know reality, at least more so than the next guy. How is that?

That which I simply cannot be bothered to change.

So, it's permissible to kill a brain-damaged human? So, someone could go to a special needs school and spray bullets inside the classrooms and nobody would bat an eyelid? — TheMadFool

It was an innocent (enough) quip at case-based abortion and neglect of the mentally ill in society. Not a quip per se more of a satirical statement that promotes awareness.

Red herring. Focus on the question/issue. What's a trait animals lack that if humans too lack it, killing humans for whatever would be permissible? I'm waiting, sir/madam, as the case may be. — TheMadFool

It's partially relevant.. but, sure. Let's see.. I'm sure there's a fancy singular word for it but in the absence of it from my vocabulary.. unconditional savagery. Men and dogs have this trait or lack of it thereof in common, they're generally the product of their environment, more or less depending on the breed, though that's contested.

Almost seems like something of a trick question that's really not that deep. Why not what's a trait humans possess that makes killing them objectionable?

It's why burning an effigy of someone is offensive, it's not the person but it's like the person. It's psychological among other things. In a sentence, ability to make known it is an intelligent equal capable of love, pain, and fear. Which may or may not justify anything as ability to make known does not equal anything but. Again, psychology.

if a human lacks self-awareness (brain damage, mental retardation) we don't kill that human — TheMadFool

Not if it reaches childhood at least. We let life take care of that.

More broadly, there was a time when man needed to eat animals to survive, perhaps before agriculture and when berries and nuts were scarce. It's already hard coded in our DNA. Sure, it can be changed. But who wants to go ahead and do that. Animals on the other hand, never needed humans to survive. Long story short, we needed them (in our stomach) to survive more than they needed us to do the same, which means they have the responsibility to be eaten. Heavy hangs the head. Besides, we can't eat each other. You'll catch "the kuru".

A virus doesn't decide anything, it adapts to the environment through mutations over generations. — Vince

What are you Bill Nye the science guy now? You don't know that, you've just been told it. You don't even own a microscope. I doubt you've even seen one let alone used one since grade school.

I know your type. You're not a philosopher, nor a scientist. You're an opportunist. Seeing what this 'philosophy' is and how it can benefit you and your monotony.

H. sapiens are alone on earth - we're, given what we've found out, the only species that's intelligent. — TheMadFool

Both ridiculous assumptions. Viruses and other bacteria are highly intelligent, being able to adapt to their surroundings and gain immunity to threats that once put them in peril. Just because we can't communicate with them or detect any form of thought in the manner of our own doesn't mean they don't "think". What's the difference between a man deciding to take a back road when his regular route is obstructed by a collision to avoid the inconvenience or hassle and a virus deciding to mutate to avoid succumbing to a vaccine? Sure, the man can say "this is why I did this" and anyone listening can smile, nod, and agree, but the same intelligence is present in both cases. That is to say, minus the fancy titles and vocalization, the same effect remains.

"Knowledge is power, energy. Intelligence is potential, wisdom is kinetic."

"Wisdom is knowledge vetted through the proving ground of life."

Those quotes are mine by the way, don't steal them.

I find it annoying — TiredThinker

Imagine being told something about yourself that is positive. Say, hey you're pretty tall. It's kinda cool to hear the first or even dozen times around. After a while it becomes.. redundant. Then, annoying. Almost as if it's some negative attribute. This word or quality that one cannot escape. I'm a gardener. No, you're a tall gardener. I'm a writer. No, you're a tall writer. It becomes mentally crippling. Just think about it.

Philosophy of Science? Unless you plan to get spooky with it. Than Philosophy of Religion.

innocent — AlienFromEarth

This is the term that has multiple definitions. Is the son of Hitler, no someone who say didn't get their ass kicked and who actually succeeded, say successfully killing off oh.. half the world's population and enslaving the other half to grueling labor and torture, not just for punishment, but often for fun.. let's take this fictional person. He has a kid. That kid is as innocent as you or I. Is he not?

Somewhere down the line, there's someone related to you who got away with unspeakable acts that by pure fact, enabled you to become the person you are today.

That said people far too frequently confuse evil with animals who simply don't know any better and thus need to be controlled. Mental illness too.

From that, a subsidiary question: Is that the Bishop moves only diagonally a fact?

This by way of digging further into facts as issues of what we might as a start call convention. We can't have personal facts - is that because they are conventional? — Banno

It is a fact that convention forbids any other movement for said piece. So, Maybe. :grin:

Convention, tradition, rules (especially mutually agreed upon), social contract. Personal facts may be far from convention. Ie. if you happen to be a minority political party and "oh this guy sucks" may be a fact for you, rather a firmly held belief, it could be far from.. well it is convention for your particular party.. I suppose who's convention is the question, it doesn't need to be the majority. An unconventional convention, is still a convention, right?

Edit: But, you can craft your personal belief into something that resembles or at least sounds like a fact by prefacing it with a simple "I think" or "It is my belief" that...

It is a fact that you think or believe something. That's no longer an opinion. The subject is an opinion of course but the statement has now become fact.

It's an interesting concept. Assuming if two people could somehow be exactly the same down to every atom in their body (or maybe not that far but as far as mental and physical 'configurations' go) .. it wouldn't matter which one goes through what upbringing as either would have been, turned into rather, the same person regardless. Bearing in mind twins are not clones, it's.. kind of a back burner topic.

I suppose to put it simply if you have two toy cars that are identical and built to the exact same specification and put them side by side, obviously they will mimic each other in locomotion. Of course, people are not toy cars, they're people so even slight seemingly infinitesimal differences in environment can snowball, forming entirely distinct personalities. If they both have a "strong side", it's reversed when facing one another. People often play games, take chances, risks, etc. Naturally differences and deviations will occur.

Beyond that, genetics are major risk factors for diseases or other abnormal changes in homeostasis, they are not stone guidelines for what will happen and when. It's random. Right? The second clone will not automatically have a heart attack if the first clone just so happens to at this 'first moment' of awakening before differences can be made.

What your describing is not an infant mind but a 'snapshot' of an adult or at least child's mind who knows how to walk, talk, make decisions, etc. Your question (or assertion) is if a person volunteers for cloning and the two resulting clones are laid on a table like you said and 'awaken', would they (assuming the 'snapshot' mind factor meaning they or them whatever know they have just been cloned) respond the exact same way? Sounds like a fun test. Unethical, but fun. The answer is simple though, of course not. People like to be unique so if one clone sees one doing something he'll do something else. It's human nature.

I hope you don't think these are destructive unprofessional thoughts !!!!!!!!! lol

A question - is that the area of a circle is given by π r² a fact?

Who says no?

How is this confirmed by observation? — Banno

Anyone who associates or defines different values or meaning to the symbols or nomenclature used. Not a particularly deep or profound answer, kind of like pointing out how one word means something else in another language, but it can be expanded on to the point of a curious conundrum, perhaps with a bit of thought.

Sure, a mathematical law, rather a sound equation would qualify as a fact, but to some the former terms describe it better and with more resoluteness. Math is indeed unique in this respect. Even science is constantly proving itself wrong then right again and back and forth. Though it's hardly the language of the gods some believe it to be.. you have one apple and I give you another, you have two. If it vanishes into thin air, you only have one. It's the one language both toddlers and professional mathematicians can understand.

As to what constitutes a 'fact' however, that is a bit less absolutely defined. We can have personal truths, but not personal facts. Therefore, it is a (successful?) attempt at placing a well-founded belief alongside the laws, nature, and truths of the gods (the absolute). Until proven wrong of course. Some are, some aren't. That's probably where the term "fun fact" comes from really :razz:

Edit: We have to understand, respect, and acknowledge the duality between the absolute and the relative. Facts, truths, reality even- as some myopically group the first two under- are all subject to change at a moment's notice, this is the absolute nature of reality. Simple example is stating "the door is closed" in reference to a door that is in fact, closed. Until I open it. It seems obvious and common sense but you'd be surprised how many seem to get caught off guard, and worse, when this fact (tee hee) confronts them in more.. personal aspects of ingrained, core belief.

Too much of a good thing... sure, before science people died more often but is that any trade off for the now possible reality that all of mankind could die off as well as the entire planet becoming irradiated, unsuitable for 98% of intelligent life for thousands if not many more years - all from a mere pissing contest, misunderstanding or yes even simple and unintentional malfunction or glitch?

You science people are a strange bunch. I think enough has been discovered. It's time to hang up the white coats, cash out your trillions from all the profits, grants, and whatnot, go buy a sports car, go to the beach and just enjoy nature, while we still can. Your work has been done. Thank you for your service, I.. guess.

It depends on how "real" you wish to attribute the non-human entities and spirit(s) said belief systems revolve around. As I would guess you are doing now, you can easily have a philosophical discussion while dismissing them as more "ideas", constructs, or placeholders for ideas we create as opposed to a what many believe, true actual beings that may or may not influence the world we live in. That changes things quite a bit.

For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.

On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.

We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire. — Athena

Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.

If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).

So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.

In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow.

We seem to be in some sort of a time paradox here. Some persons in this thread wish or apparently have proven with fact that they shouldn't have been born, yet only, solely, and exclusively by having been born are able to proclaim the truth about such evil. It's like the Terminator, but more suicidal.

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. — I like sushi

This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, @Antinatalist? How so?

Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them.

truth is bitter and we tell ourselves fantastical tales to keep us from learning the ugly truth. — TheMadFool

Truth is that, as you're programmed to believe, and you know you are, mankind has elevated himself slowly but surely from ridiculous purposeless cave beings beating each over the head, living in blood and other undesirable substances, to creatures of intellect with purpose, jobs, joy, emotion, arts, innovation, discovery, the whole universe is now at our fingertips. You call this an ugly truth? Sure, entropy and negentropy are very real concepts. This world and presumably the universe and all things in it are slowly becoming disorganized, chaotic, coming to a stop, a halt, universally they call it a heat death I believe is the prevailing theory, but just look at what was accomplished. Have we, at the absolute very least, had a good run?