Which one am I? A child or a fool? Or am I both? I'm not kidding. An answer will mean a lot to me. — TheMadFool

As I've yet to have the pleasure of becoming acquainted with you I would not know. Is your name ironic?

This contradicts your previous statement. — TheMadFool

How is that?

A stoic thinks of "suffering as a [necessary] part of life." — TheMadFool

Only a child or fool doesn't.

I would've come to the exact same conclusion had I been living 2000 years ago - poor sanitation, rampant disease, ineffective medicine, wars, plagues, corruption, and, for people like me, no air conditioning. — TheMadFool

Well the good news is 2,000 years later we at least managed air conditioning.

I can't see myself living anywhere else — healing-anger

Ok. Lol. Yet there's no reason you easily couldn't. Eggshells abound apparently. Sounds like a match made in heaven to be honest. I'm sure you'll figure something out.

the intellect can only be challenged by another intellect but effectively even that is of no consequence. — Judaka

If so, what gives any 'intellect' of any persuasion or level any meaning beyond itself? Feeling, as the OP states?

The human race is so small and insignificant and in x amount of years we will all be forgotten and nothing, in the end, will matter at all. So why does it matter? — existentialcrisis

Well apparently with your omniscience you qualify as some sort of god so there's that. /sly

Is about truth I believe, not knowledge. — TheMadFool

What is "truth"? Is assembling cars by hand the only way to produce an automobile and move society forward? In the 1920's that answer would be yes and the truth. A century later is that method now obsolete and automation the better way to do so? That answer is also the truth. Yet both were and are still knowledge.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly. Would you be so kind as to define both "instances of knowledge" and "criterion for knowledge". The first seems to imply some absolute (whatever that means) prescription for what is and what isn't. And if so that's great. No need to even discuss anything. The latter also yet indirectly seems to do the same. What are your definitions for the two? Is an "instance" of knowledge something that works and is proven to be solid enough? What is a criterion then? Prescribed knowledge (again from who knows where) of what something is? Why would anyone subscribe to a criterion if it can't or wasn't proven to be reliable beforehand? It doesn't matter what word "X" uses to describe a "tree" per the details you described, it's more of a semantic reference. Whether or not a "tree" is a "tree" because something not a tree happens to fit the description perfectly (say a faux model of a tree or an illusion/mirage) the point is hardly lost.

Edit: it's a bit late. more than likely missing something from your post, but, I just want to confirm this isn't a simple argument of semantics. Which many 'philosophical' disagreements turn out to be. Seeking clarification, thanks.

You can't 'invade' a democratic nation open to all- rather, that'd be stupid. Unnecessary.

To be fair, historically, the largest genocides of unique peoples have always been perpetrated by, themselves. As can be shown in the region of the world we're talking about. Sunni vs. Shiite, I believe.

Uh. You wanna.. add a bit more content to your first post perhaps to include your thoughts? (this is a very high class place, not presumptuous, just if it were a dining venue it'd be jackets required, no caps)

Well so the story goes all life came from water. No planet can sustain life without it really. We drink it, obviously. It forms mountains, beaches. Allegedly God killed everyone alive with it one time. It's pretty universal come to think of it.

That's why there's pragmatism, which is course isn't flawless nor does it aspire to be some absolute golden standard. It's just what works. Probably where the whole "if it's not broke don't fix it" saying comes from.

It allows plenty room for improvement. Was assembling cars by hand the fastest, most efficient method to do so? We now know it wasn't. But it worked for the time and few people complained. Of course, when better methodologies became available they were utilized. You even seem to suggest, we really can't hope to achieve much better than I described. Here and now, of course.

Yes. Not at first, not right away, and not by intent of design or nature of pursuit. But yes. The only question is for who. And due to the nature of science and technological innovation, can be one of the few true toss ups we have today. Of course, like responsible procreation, just because you stop and act responsibly doesn't mean everyone else will. And so, becomes an inevitable and necessary evil of a sort. Something of a race to oblivion I suppose. You learn to make the best of things.

You don't want to have an event that turns a place intended for the best minds and souls to come together to better themselves and others in the process into a thing where people just show up for the free stuff and leave or otherwise lounge around until the next bone is thrown while others actually contribute. It's not fair to the productive. Same argument as the insurance, really.

I suppose the question all debaters of any flavor need to ask themselves this Hallow's Eve is: "how can one be certain the utopia one seeks isn't actually a dystopia of the worst kind?"

Now if you'll excuse me I have to send my young children to stranger's houses unsupervised in sparkly clothes to consume items of unknown origin. All on a night associated with heavy (oc)cult activity. Seems legit. I mean it's no crawling around in the woods with the subconscious hope of running into a fully grown man dressed in a bunny costume who beckons you to follow him somewhere but whatever. Aren't our holidays great?

"We" is the free world. And yes, it is a stated assumption that we want a just world — Paul Edwards

What is free? Free to be drunk all day and rot our insides and become a burden on our society? Free to be the vilest person one can be (within confines of the law) and viciously insult, degrade, and belittle those who may be going through more than you could imagine or perhaps even handle if the tides were to change and drive them to depression, suicide, or even acting out on others? Or just making society and public an all-around shitty place to be? Free to subvert the nuclear family or natural family unit into a haphazard partnership leaving children to grow up socially-malformed with no sense of right or wrong beyond what little lessons, morals, or values they were exposed to? Free to worship the darkest of forces (all while refusing to acknowledge they exist) that not only encourage but demand humanity be the worst they can be toward one another (tactfully and within the law). Newsflash. At this rate, the idea of what is 'just' or proper/"normal" is rapidly declining and without external guidelines may continue its downward spiral.

instead of dismissing this world as some sort of purgatory that we just need to accept. — Paul Edwards

And what if it is? Not to just "accept" but to rise above and beyond. Which calls for leaders to "speak softly and carry a big stick" .. in hopes of guiding all toward a higher morality.

Ok, there is another assumption I have that dictators are enslavers while ordinary citizens like myself are not. Would you like to see video of Saddam's goons cutting out someone's tongue? Can you not see a difference between that and using an iphone? — Paul Edwards

Sure, that's a sovereign leader (again, an individual, one bad apple) committing human rights abuses which should be punished swiftly and appropriately. I mean, and I understand, that act you describe was probably for a non-heinous "crime" ie. speaking out against the government/blasphemy/something of the sort, and that is shocking. However, if it wasn't, what difference is that between putting someone in the electric chair, injecting them with lethal poisons that kill them, or otherwise incarcerating them or like it was back then hanging them.

Indifference is the gateway sin, the root cause of all suffering men experience in this world. Sure, the average man, shoot maybe he's even an exemplary man who goes above and beyond his social commitments/contract, that's great. Is pushing a button that kills a person in another room that's labeled "free hugs" much different in terms of concrete real world effect from someone who presses the same button if it were properly labeled?

(for the record I'm more or less- I think- on your side as far as the arguments you claim to represent. Just, anything based on substance can be refuted wholeheartedly and convincingly so I'm just playing a sort of devil's advocate here.)

We — Paul Edwards

Who is this "we" and what gives you a duty or even a right to "construct" the world we all share in your image of justice? Idealism is great, however after not much uncovering you may find your "responsibility to protect others" is derived from little more than to protect oneself from public backlash or war crimes. Which I find the term an ironic hypocrisy as it implies large-scale killing of peoples is permitted "so long as you do it quickly and without too much suffering" ... seriously who on Earth comes up with this crap?

state-slavery — Paul Edwards

Without mutually agreed upon rules and codes of conduct (and they were by your ancestors, just they didn't have their minds and souls rotted by mind numbing television, convenience, and social media), and those rules and codes being enforced in an open and free medium with real repercussion when not followed, people enslave each other just fine. If you mean the modern first-world we live in where a wheelchair-bound man can work a dignified job and be just as successful as someone perfectly gifted in physique and health, is 'state-slavery' then *whip sound* back to work.

we could simply nuke all the slave states — Paul Edwards

Lol. Again with this we business. If the majority human populace, not during the enlightened period but the ignorant periods of the past and today (which have so much in common it's eerie) had their way and controlled the armed forces this rock we live on would've been a smouldering, fiery crater devoid of all life a long time ago. Let us be thankful that's not the case. I guess.

Just keep using your top of the line iPhone manufactured by drearily underpaid workers and eat your fresh produce picked by the same while continuing to demonize and fix a noose for these imaginary slavers that seem to exist everywhere and anywhere but in the mirror.

So where do we go from there? There's no organic components nor any recognizable sensory or "feeling" nodes so... if we're on that tangent why don't we just ponder if raindrops are sad when they fall from the clouds, or that the grass gets angry when we cut it. I mean, at least they have organic, intelligent cells. Does a magnet get angry when we introduce another magnet of opposite polarity? Is an electromagnetic generator "happy" when it produces current? It's all the same physics, so where are we supposed to draw the line?

What is it about mindless circuitry that infatuates some folks so? Wait. Unless....

You're on a computer right? Phone at least. Run a systems diagnostic or "CPU health" test or something of the like. It doesn't "feel" anything it only reports, when asked. Rather, instructed.

You'd need a robotic body with millions (if not more) of nanowires crisscrossing every single surface to be able to report to the main circuit board (brain) to be able to encompass any sort of "feeling" which again is little more than a systems check. Example, the right arm is slightly dented or damaged, etc. You'd have to program an entire AI to give it a "mood" in response to being in a less than optimal state, which defeats the purpose of robotics/tools in general. My toaster is kind of dirty. What if it was sad and so decided not to toast my bread properly? That's not why machines were introduced, otherwise we'd just use people.

A robot is an inorganic creation that isn't alive ie. has the essence/evolutionary capacity the human brain has. It's either a (depending on form) circuit board or figurine operating from a base system of 1's and 0's. It performs pre-programmed functions and nothing more. Now, sure, you could program randomness into it and its operation, but that's all it really ever would be. Perhaps there's other forms of AI I'm not familiar with, where the "randomness"/"mood" parameter fluctuates according to stimuli/circumstance or perhaps yes even "qualia". Similar to a human, in it's earliest stage it was around (and capable of observing) say a mountain range or beach and so "prefers" or is "happy" around the same scenery. It's still a creation following code/script/circuitry. Of course... there's an argument the human brain isn't much different. Again, one has a clear creator-creation relationship the other... is what we're debating about.

I'm simply suggesting that we are not in a position to say with absolute confidence that a robot, as described by TheMadFool, cannot/does not experience 'qualia'. — ChrisH

If it does, it is because it was programmed to. Who programmed us to? The question many will pass off as rubbish and a red herring, and that few wish to answer.

Does qualia = sensation? An experience that the mind perceives that is apart from the normal state of nothingness or the norm rather (whatever that may be)?

My cat experiences 'qualia' when I rub her on the head I'm sure. When I first got her and turned her into an indoor cat, she left some 'qualia' on my bed when i was absent for 2 days and didn't change the litter box. Both she and I exhibited some consciousness in some way shape or form in this exchange of 'qualia'.

I guess, to ask the obvious, what is 'qualia'? What isn't and why isn't it?

There's a green lighter next to me as I type this. Bright, lime green. It's a striking image, object rather that seems to jut out from the background. As a person with a human mind and relatively functional sense of sight, it's just my neurons/synapses rendering a scene of high contrast, which catches the eye inherently. Yet I know I am me, a person, and that object is an object, a tool for my use. Is this not consciousness? If not, what is?

Basically, if we as humans really evolved here along with everything else in the same time period, side by side, why don't we see birds, dolphins, or other animals with (semi) advanced civilizations as well? Or something mildly representative of the evolutionary process. It goes from barely recognizing oneself in the mirror (reflection test) and simple tools/puzzle solving (birds and some mammals) to full blown metropolis, thermonuclear fusion, circuit boards, and space travel with NO link or reasonable midway point in between. It's just bizarre. To say the least. Is that similar or a part of what you're asking? It's a fair question. Mighty fair indeed.

There's a such thing as comfort in logic and reason ie. when the two go together, often with some form of morality- and there's inane adaptation to a mentality that is- at any given moment- outside of all three. So long as one is "on top" or otherwise "right" in ways of social or personal superiority. These individuals are fine, so long as they abide to the larger system, that encompasses and provides for higher reason and understanding irrespective of personal position. That said, if you're making references to the "comfort" that is found in religious philosophies, rather "holding the feet to the fire" to those who hold comfort, solace, or confidence in a position -any position- that either isn't or cannot be proven or disproven here and now... I fail to see the "big deal" so to speak. We debate with those whom we deem debatable.

If one can deal with what they dish out to others and expect them to deal with as normal, I suppose there's little to be concerned about. It's the circumstance that others who deal the brunt of what others deal, and the great circumstantial fortune (temporality) responsible for those being able to do as they do being removed or reversed is what most forget, and so seals the fate of those who do not repent. Which is how it always was. It's when those predetermined, insistent, or otherwise damned to do and suffer from a reversal. attempt to convince others whose fate is undetermined that doing so is "normal", "right", or otherwise "predetermined" in attempt to damn them as well, is when Others speak and act. This is 2020 in a nutshell.

Portions of the Old Testament, like those I quoted, are generally ignored by most religious figures today. — Ciceronianus the White

Technically, Christianity is about retiring the Old Testament and heh christening a new one. Kinda like "yeah it happened but we don't really do that so much now" .. take that how you please.

We need scientific thinking, not religion. — Athena

What a brilliant idea Athena .. maybe soon we'll be able to make bombs that can blow up entire continents instead of just regional areas. I mean, according to Darwinism if you're smaller or weaker or less intelligent than myself, I just about have a duty to consume, eat, kill, or otherwise "assert my superiority over you" and if I do so, that's just helping the human race. To not do so is to leave us all handicapped.

There's no reason you can't have both.

To be fair I can't think of a single religion that doesn't cast non-believers as something less than positive or equal. Otherwise, there's no reason to be in the religion. Non-Christians are "lost sinners", non-Muslims are "infidels", most others are "non-believers".

Suppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol.

Right. And all things being equal. Well, yeah. Must be doing something right, eh?

Well I mean... that's not as you wish it to be perceived I'm afraid. Musical artists are one out of not only thousands but millions even. Some succeed, and that success is based on something.

So, long story short the odds of rolling a single number 50 times in a row is less than not. We're hardly at odds here it would seem. What's your deal?

Anything could happen. You insist that out of 3 dice rolls, rolling the exact same number all three times is just as likely as any other scenario? So, rolling a die 50 times and getting the same number all 50 times- in a row- is just as likely as not? How come it never happens then.

I see...

It just seems curious to me, and I'm sure to some others. By the nature of randomness and chance, in an equal and balanced scenario ie. a six-sided die each side has an equal chance of being rolled, approximately 16%.

Therefore, one could assume, rolling the same number twice in a row is less likely than rolling two different numbers. Much as it would be rolling the same number three times in a row. Each same roll in a row being less and less likely.

To put it another way, if you were forced to make a bet of three scenarios involving a die rolled three times. Which would you choose? A.) Each roll would be different. B.) Two rolls in a row would be the same. C.) All three rolls would be the same.

It's a curious mental phenomenon/falsehood that I'm sure entangles many. It does for me at least.

"In a competitive workforce, when men go from striving to be the best versions of themselves they can be to being the worst and sabotaging his fellow man to get ahead, even at expense to the organization, and calling this normal, you know something has gone wrong."

And I'm not even for that kind of change. Simply, one would be foolish to think a man-made system is without its flaws and inherent dangers or shortcomings. No problem is without a solution. Question is, will we find it?

I've just had an aha moment! Suppose you're rolling a six-sided die. There are six possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The probability that you'll roll a number greater than 6 is zero i.e. no matter how many times you cast this die, you'll never get a 7 or higher number. And on every roll of this die, you'll always get a number between 1 and 6 inclusive. It appears that I'm wrong. :chin: — TheMadFool

Well now that that's cleared up... :grin:

Whatever number you roll is now less likely to be rolled again right after. Or is it?

Say after a dozen or so rolls there's only 1 side (number) that hasn't been rolled. The odds of you rolling that number next must be very high. Or isn't it?

Why or why not.

For example, we can know if someone used a gun to kill someone, but how well do we know the person and that person's experience leading up to what happened that led to the killing? How much do we know about life that gives us the ability to judge others, even complete strangers from totally different backgrounds? Please consider do we have the knowledge and wisdom to judge each other? — Athena

That's what's attempted to be found out in an open and public court of law with evidence, details about the persons life, character testimony, witnesses, and allegedly a judge who is mature and very well versed in life and its many ups and downs who knows the law and rights extensively.

I guess the question would be, if someone kills someone close to you in cold blood for no reason, would you be OK with them walking away unpunished, perhaps to do it again and victimize more innocent persons or families? People will still take justice into their own hands. Do you see any reason for justice to be administered on the street by a mob who can't think for themselves and act on emotion and whatever public opinion happens to be most prevalent or would you rather it be in a professional court setting with a man who's job is to be impartial and everything and anything is recorded and able to be verified and or discussed?

Sure, and pleasure or satisfaction from a dream is still as it seems. But it wasn't real. Was it?

But is it? You've never had a dream where you felt extreme shock or pain essentially? Being asleep, how could you know there was a real physical pain responsible?

I would have to say that his point is best captured by his first sentence. That the other person is wrong. Lol.

Now to examine both statements and provide commentary on each including the individual perspective of both is another matter. Which I will attempt to do shortly. First we have to define what each concept (concepts that have been debated for millennia) "means" or rather what each party determines them to mean, respectively.

Strawson's view, as Dennett points out as inconsistent with his own, determines perceiving everything perceived or able to be perceived is consciousness. Which generally makes sense. You're reading this post from myself, and I've read and am now replying to a post from the OP. Hard to argue with that.

However, Dennett, from my interpretation, seems to hint that all that glitters is not gold, in a sense. Rather, we breathe depth and life into things that inherently don't have either. My best understanding of being "directly acquainted" with "fundamental properties" works out to a sort of "innate intelligence" which in my attempts to avoid the spiritual or metaphysical would be something along the lines of something inherently inside us all that differentiates our interactions with one another from the interactions of natural forces or elements ie. magnets, gravity, combustibility, cellular functions, etc. Which is technically by all available information just as plausible.

We interact positively with someone who we like or makes us feel good or at least doesn't possess any of the opposite traits or qualities, we interact poorly with those who do. So do animals. And beyond that so do the cells in both humans and animals with other cells. Where does one draw the line? Sure, we can create fancy machines and eloquent conversation with those we get along with or understand, but translating all that to a scenario where each of us are just tiny one-celled organisms or cells in a larger structure, are the things and actions they're responsible for not as remarkable as our own?

Anything can happen in life, that's why it's not Hell.

Remember this and you'll be fine. Or as some would say, do with this as you please.

as to whether the narrative seems convincing — Enrique

In a word, yes. Very well written. Can honestly say I feel I've gained 10 IQ points just reading it.

Synesthesias materialized in the human brain which integrated modules responsible for syntax with those involved in dimensional perception. — Enrique

Bearing in mind I had to Google at least 2 words in your OP, could you explain this in a bit more detail? Examples, etc. I get the idea, heh I think :smile: , but essentially this stands above what animals can do, ie. birds recognizing themselves in the mirror, pigs being able to solve puzzles, whatever monkeys can do, etc?

Also, genuinely curious I apologize if this sounds facetious but going by what I've read, does this mean all animals have the potential to become "human-like" or on par with us given enough time ie. becoming upright, using tools, their brain developing, etc. in your opinion? Thanks

Also curious as to what more advanced members here that are more your speed have to say?

So you feel it is frustrating to you for others to strive to be as strong as possible. — kudos

Not at all. Did I say that? I must've implied it. My mistake. We all have our triggers. Though I believe I pretty much if not explicitly said it's smarter to train physical strength (be strong) than to not (be).

Why is that, do you think it is an overall bad trait? — kudos

Naturally as a self-proclaimed philosopher I believe mental fortitude can topple brute strength on occasion. Call me a pen mightier than the sword kind of guy if you must. Both are needed really. I suppose seeing as physical strength or power is something largely out of one's control those who rely heavily on something that's a "given" or otherwise easily obtained or done as the entirety of their essence or who they are not only miss out on the more refined things in life but can sometimes dull or handicap the lives of others. Curse of empathy, what can I say.

Just bad for some and not for others? — kudos

Well, sure. It's not the object or essence it's what it's used for or why you seek it.

Would you vote for a political leader who had this type of drive? — kudos

Again, it's the intent behind the motive. To quote someone I'm not sure whether or not I admire, leaders are dealers in hope. Peace through strength is a mighty fine slogan and philosophy. Now, how this peace and strength is obtained and maintained I think is the question.

Edit: Nevermind. My hobbies include perusing the internet and on occasion having a few beers. Seriously though someone can prove something along the lines of whatever. Look it up!

In that sense? No. I cannot recall- nor would I like to- a time where humans preyed on each other regularly for direct sustenance- in terms of literally eating one another. As far as conquering land and peoples for resources or servitude, yes but even that doesn't mesh with the reasoning in your OP. Animals don't enslave other animals, they eat them- or at the greatest congruence to humans, chase them out of former territory.

Humanity however is a bit different. When most people think of the word 'weak' they think of lacking physical strength. Seldom does mental ability come to mind. And sure, living as cave peoples someone bigger than yourself makes you for all intents and purposes- weak. As in your power and potential over theirs is far lesser. At least in comparison. But- if you were to say utilize something as simple as a lever and wield something as simple as a slingshot for example, that advantage in strength and size the other person has over you is negated. Or at least, the two are drawn much closer together. Sure, greater physical strength and size will always translate to greater power in terms of analog devices and tools but it becomes less of an inherent necessity.

If you're from one group who is being invaded by a much larger group, with few numbers left on your own- and you manage to study natural elements and determine which are poisonous- you can use stealth to say "spike" the enemy camps water supply and become victorious by the next morning. Just one of many examples.

Say you're in a primitive jungle and you come across someone much larger than you. If you can either get them to chase after you or perhaps chastise them if they don't at first, you could lure them to say a pitfall trap with sharpened spikes. Or just in general take someone much stronger than you. If that person is vulnerable to name-calling, insults, and other forms of mental sabotage and you happen not to be, well, you have the upper hand in most things save for a direct conflict of course. And even so, anger or rage especially can lead to mistakes and oversight.

To answer the question, assuming we're using weakness and strength properly and not completely focused on the physical... generally probably not but I'm sure there are some exceptions. I'm trying to think of a more eloquent way to phrase it other than "don't be like that guy" in terms of motivation to become the strongest you can be, especially if you witness reasons or events where it would've come in handy. Besides, many people and I would hope most train physical strength because they know it's smarter than to not and perhaps even to do good things, but those who don't and do so just for vanity or rather to try and address a deep-rooted personal insecurity or inferiority complex... would probably feel better about themselves after coming across someone less gifted or otherwise "weaker". I suppose there's that.