That's a check, is it not?



Your move

Your move

An allegedly smart person who holds that reputation, has to wage daily battles with wannabes. — god must be atheist

Did a sufficiently advanced smart person not "want to be" smarter some point in their life if not throughout its entirety? Perhaps not. But, it's worth explaining otherwise..

Interesting.



Your move

Am I missing something here?

Your move

Your move

Your move

but the emphasis on intellectual prowess in Western society seems over-the-top and to the exclusion of other attributes that would seemingly provide for a better (more balanced) life — synthesis

Modern? Like today? Lol. Hard to argue with that OP.

Your move

Your move

Was asked this recently, and am now curious about how my definition varies when compared to others. — Gordon Jones

And now, so are we. Considering you've neglected to share yours.

That's.. interesting. If not an interesting philosophical commentary on the times in which we live. Always associated a crown with the king and also the tallest piece, etc, etc... Let's re-do from your move before my most recent one. After all, you did forget to say "check" ... :p

I thought he could attack people in an immediate diagonal quad space. As in, you could attack the queen and that's your move then its mine. Hmm.. I'm going to Google that but in the mean time give me a few moments.

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Was messing with him some. Like I said needs some stricter coding to prevent such occurrences.



Your move

Your move

Whoops. Good move btw. Haven't played in a while but it's basically logic and analysis in a game format so.. no excuse really.



Your move

Oh I could've written something like that. Well, here's my backseat critique of points I deem critique-able. Which is just about all of it.

This is the great lesson the depressive learns: Nothing in the world is inherently compelling. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Well of course not, "the world" its just rocks, dust, and chemicals interacting with one another in various states and mediums.

Nothing is either good or bad, desirable or undesirable, or anything else except that it is made so by laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Whatever it may be, emotions, thoughts, etc if it's "on which we live" .. that's called life. You can call a mountain a molehill while your standing atop of it but if it really were you'd be singing a different tune.

And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

So, he's using wisdom, thought, philosophy, all of which were largely impactful of and impacted by, emotion. So there is something predating if not validating emotion, which is logic or at least whatever he expects us to assume gives this sentence any value, purpose, or yes even coherence than if I just mashed my keyboard and posted it. Otherwise, what the heck is he even talking about? We know what he's talking about. Therefore, meaning exists.

There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Sure there would. Chemical processes are never static, always dynamic. Entropy and negentropy. Heat rises. Water evaporates. Without heat, vapor turns to liquid, liquid turns to solid, and with heat it's the opposite. There's no "standstill" chemically or biologically.

The alternatives are clear: to live falsely as pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives, or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Nice save there on his part with the caveat "or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive". Not much to explain with 5 seconds of cross-examining his statement without this bit, really.

One look at human existence is proof enough that our species will not be released from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to hallucinations. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Again with the "nothing has meaning yet for some reason this does" paradox. I'm done :lol:

Your move

(or anyone reading feel free to start a new game from the second post)

Your move...

Actually, you're wrong. There's a 0.00000000000000000001 percent chance someone invented a time-freezing machine, and decided to "bring" a couple hundred or so people with him into this technically new world of frozen time. And decided to swap out every single die mid-roll with a die that has a number 7 instead of 6. Just to mess with people who go on about probability. Kudos to them. It's unlikely, to say the least. But it's not impossible, so technically, you cannot say never nor always...

Ok.. you gotta.. baby it. This site needs some major JavaScript overhauling.. could even do it with basic HTML links. Just gotta hash the coords. That or create a unique ID for each "new game"

Here.



Edit: As well as manually flip the board and provide a link so the person doesn't have to spend 5 minutes moving every single piece back and forth, breaking concentration or having to keep the page open. I've done it manually for you, or anyone who wants to make the next move.

Your move...

Seriously though, I love the idea of this, but it's (clearly) not working properly for me..

slave morality — Ross Campbell

What is "slave morality"? Sans religion, we're all- each of us- slaves to our bodies. Hunger, thirst, exposure, injury, etc. We're also all bound (or enslaved) to social truths/workings ie. if you go around making enemies and being despicable, it'll probably come back to bite you.

The argument behind religions that dictate morality is something along the lines of they show you the chains you think you're not bound to, as well as give you the key you think you don't need. Essentially, the freedom you think you have is really just enslavement to the least of what life has to offer (impulse, petty desire, negative emotion) and while it may seem the opposite at times actually restricts you from ever reaching the best life has to offer which transcends material gain, petty emotion and even pettier squabbles. That's what they say at least.

Bearing in mind I'm not a geneticist I'd say there's a good chance for some rather intelligent tendencies and ability... along with some not so intelligent ones. It'd be safer to say it would be more of a random mishmash then trying to say for certain whether the entirely random series and facets of traits, inclinations, disinclination, and inherent cognitive ability that we attempt to summarize with a single term (ie. intelligent or dull) is more or less likely to coincide with one social term/definition than the other.

I like to believe in a semi-absolute way the value is more or less the same throughout. Now the personal attachment to certain lives aka people, beings, or "souls" even is where opinions come up.

Certain religions should be credited for an entirely psychological benefit. That benefit being, when you are told you have been created willfully and intentionally, it is a blessing personally bestowed upon you by someone or something much greater than you, and it can and may be taken at any given moment, therefore you should be thankful for each day when you wake up and before you lie down, it can be notably effective in softening the blow and both short and long term psychological effects of losing someone very close to you, even horribly. Then again the same could be said with a bit of spin on any form of belief or "comparison" I suppose. Pragmatic, nihilistic, and even combinations of both. "Imagine. We're on a giant blue marble with seven other planets, all uninhabited, hurling through space at millions of miles an hour, across the galaxy alongside millions untold other galaxies we've yet to know anything about. What a miracle. 'Not a bad life'", etc.

Edit: What I was going to continue on about before I re-read your post was the interpretation of "what is the value of human life to you (in general)?" As in, say, on this planet or in the universe or more broadly, etc. I was almost going to pose the caveat: compared to what? You can value nothing more than the life of a person, yet not view the potential (and inevitable) loss as anything more significant than a yawn or a sneeze. That kind of mindset typically involves some sort of religion or metaphysical belief (reincarnation, etc.). Somewhat tangential to the aforementioned idea of "human life in general" yet relevant to your definition would be say, imagine the most remorseless criminal guilty of the most heinous crimes, all of which were against you or your loved ones personally. You could hate him, wish for him to be executed, etc., but if we were to focus on that "human life in general", it would still have value. Basically there is the "spark of life" vs. "what one chose to do with it" ie. "the individual". I know you did say "a" human life which can seem to boil down to "what do you think about other people (or perhaps people in general, to include yourself)". Not sure if this is your intention.

Masculinity, as it is generally defined is a physically-reliant or at least centered concept, though it can be one of two things, often summed up by those who pride themselves on such as "not being a woman".

Essentially, it's what males often wish to avoid seeing in their female counterparts. Being lax with hygiene, and insisting on what they want to do in a rough, assertive, adamant manner, outside of the bedroom, in life and the course of a relationship ie. being the "dominant" one in the situation, relationship, or room.

It's about being assertive. It's also about being content with situations no matter how unfavorable, or at least not whining about or internalizing it and so acting adversely because of it. Which unfortunately too many men who rely on their size often default to while believing they're doing the opposite. Essentially, there's no way you can be "toxically accepting" as that's more about non-action or non-response to situations you're in. So I'd say for purposes of this argument it's about assertiveness. There's no such thing as "toxic femininity" .. is there? :grin:

I was raised to treat everyone as an equal unless they give you or otherwise present a clear reason not to. So. Let's drop the gender stereotypes for a moment and think. In a sentence, probably to the point where your being rude, abrasive, abusive, or in a word just downright sh*tty. Probably best sums it up.

You have heard of the attractiveness of "bad boys", right? — LuckyR

It's not a gender-specific thing in the broader sense. Let's think or assume for a bit. We're on a new world, with no weapons, technology, or knowledge, barely able to communicate by anything other than a grunt or yell. How did we manage to go from that to microchips, public services, and "Alexa, order more cat food"? Following social order and progressing, working (sure, sometimes, often even) fighting one another, but in the contexts of "groups" or "teams". Of course, throughout all of that, someone eventually came up with an idea that stood out of began to act in a way that was different than that of his peers. Hence innovation, discovery, and progress. Granted, 90% of "being different" turned out to be naught/purposeless aka "didn't go anywhere."

When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps." "Great success is built on failure, frustration, even catastrophy."

But eventually, it did. Take the male peacock. It extravagantly stands out to attract a mate. Sort of like how an inventor tries something new and outlandish to create something new. If nothing happens, he looks foolish. If it works out, those who mocked and rejected him were the fools. There's that aspect.

More generally however, people, men and women, like excitement which is essentially disruption from the routine. Be it productive or not. Think of your favorite character from a movie, book, or TV show? Is he the timid yet wise banker, accountant, or manager keeping everything running and on track? Probably not. Odds are it's the crazy young guy yelling and blowing things up.

That said. The bad boy serves a purpose. There's a time and a place for everything. In society- specifically older ones were it the very notion of society and civilization was fleeting- the guy who didn't play by the rules, and whose actions could not be accounted for ie. "got away with it" often ended up with more resources. Hence continued on in the gene pool over those who perhaps actually tried to follow the rules that created the society in the first place. As some correctly say were just being lazy and trying to get out of work (and did) by leeching off the work of others. There's a balance, as you can see. Sometimes it's useful and moves a society or civilization, such as it is, forward. Other times, for example, say if you're on a ship and you're the "bad boy" who puts off his duties that happen to be vital to the navigation, the s**t will crash and we'd all die. That's why they were thrown overboard and eaten by sharks- hence the legend of the merman.

Do intelligent women ever find average to a little bit slow men attractive? — TiredThinker

Do intelligent men ever find average to a little bit slow women attractive? Sure. If they are. :grin:

It's an interesting question. Which can be answered or perhaps even at least expanded by the following: why is the "trophy husband" trope/meme/what have you far less common than the "trophy wife"? It's a debate with room for endless argument. Are men more vain than women (ie. the primal desire to have status in society, which is often correlated with resources hence survival)? Or are women more vain than men (again the same primal desire to have a strong provider, again correlated with resources/survival). It's an interesting debate no doubt. For those mature enough to handle it. I'll start. Why will this post, one that examines women as man's equal or perhaps even greater, be viewed as misogynistic by some?

Potentially more Lounge material but.. is it a tongue? lol. speech?

Edit: or words?

"There are many bodies, one consciousness" - Anonymous

And what if you did. You'd be bored of it already. Enjoy the mystery. There's really only two mainstream possibilities anyway, you either earned it (be it a reward or punishment) or it's just a random series of events of no real purpose. Can't go wrong with enjoying the mystery.

I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. — Jack Cummins

If they do, perhaps you're courting the wrong ideals? Then again. People can be crazy. Not every mainstream idea turned out to be right or idealistic.

However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about. — Jack Cummins

What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really? Passion is not logic, it can be misguided, even detrimental to the ideals or truths you subscribe to or goals and purposes you wish to fulfill. If a belief is passed down or otherwise ingrained from upbringing, you'd be surprised how many men would rather be wrong, injured, or killed (even metaphorically) then allow the same to happen to a member of their family. It's a sense of honor we all have. Of course, like mentioned, not all beliefs or courses of action are wise.

It's not always the right choice to defend the material side by making any thing that doesn't seem very related to a material interpretation eitther a not-eplained-yet by science or a coincidence in the worst case — BARAA

I agree. I'm open to the possibility it's something metaphysical, supernatural, or divine. Just as much as I'm open to the possibility it's a trick your brain is playing on you. I'll be the first person here to suggest that humanity and the human consciousness is the result of divine action. Nevertheless, in a material world where we've been placed, it's our first thing to work with and so need not be ignored- completely at least. Beyond that, this is a forum where we prove or at least offer justification to our beliefs with logic and philosophical discourse first and foremost.

So,in the end of your reply you suggested the phenomenon to be a coincidence — BARAA

I suggested both are possible, yet I did mention more often than not, it can easily be explained by what you deem "material" reasoning. Like many forums, individual case stories and situations are fundamental to many discussions, but the resulting discussion should not be limited to them.

It very well could be something divine, supernatural, or otherwise outside of the realm of this world and its logic- hence no longer philosophy.

Technically, the first mutated, mangled, haphazardly crawling thing that dragged itself out of the primordial swamp with its little mutated fish hands, probably due to being shunned due to said mutated fish hands, was a defect. What is your point, OP.

knowing exactly what was gonna happen in the next scene — BARAA

Scene? Pardon? :grin:

Premonitions aside, which do seem rather intriguing.. absent of anything "spooky", deja vu is more than likely just a quirk of the human mind. Similar to pareidolia (seeing faces such as on an electrical outlet). The mind is constantly looking for shortcuts, that's what causes hallucinations with hallucinogenic substances, they block certain senses/receptors in a unique way and your mind frantically tries to connect the dots absent of normal receptors. Saves time, and if you ask me is responsible for inventions and innovation. Cognitive dissonance is somewhat similar, being that if your mind is in an altered state (either physically, sensory, or argumentatively in something like a debate) it doesn't like being confused or otherwise "feeling that somethings wrong" so will default on what it's used to/knows/what has worked in the past.

What if what you "knew" was going to happen, didn't. You'd have just shrugged it off and probably never gave it a second thought let alone post about it. But it did. So it got your attention.