You bring up a good point. Sort of. The reason why conspiracies against groups of people, especially smaller groups who by comparison have less defense due to numbers is so dangerous, is fairly obvious. Paranoia or even suspicion is hardwired into the human brain through years of early survival. You're in the woods and you hear a twig break or something else that just makes you feel off occurs, you pay attention and respond to it, you may just save your life. That fact is what I hold my belief of where paranoid-class complexes or ailments come from. You're in a group of a few hundred people who everyone more or less knows each other and you happen to have over a few dozen new people over- and something odd occurs. As someone in the larger group who everyone you know or someone you know knows, and if this smaller group likes to maintain their own traditions which naturally involves some level of privacy, or as some would cast secrecy, your mind will naturally assume it to be the unknown vs. the known A sort of failed attempt at "when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains must be the culprit" per folly of human psyche. In a strange way we can be as trusting as we are suspicious. Your brain is uncomfortable if it can't find a solution to something and so will conform to what has worked in the past or makes sense based on belief or upbringing, hence optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, pareidolia, suspicions, witch hunts, etc. Long story short that can lead to innocent people getting hurt.

On the other hand though the general term 'conspiracy theory' where it doesn't have to do with people (ie. aliens or government coverups) can be used, rather the facts from the first paragraph can be used, as they are very real and understandable, to hide other things. Which is worth noting.

Anything is whatever anyone wants it to be. Especially if money and power are involved or rather can be.

However, perhaps a way of questioning and evaluating all the ethical systems of the past — Jack Cummins

What are your suggestions?

a world that is in falling apart. — Jack Cummins

There's hardly any event, scenario, or circumstance happening now that hasn't occurred before. Especially severity. We're just more connected and aware of eachother now. I mean, could be. Who knows

You can have a principle defined on whatever you wish. But it's up to you to stick to it, you follow it because you allege it to be important, but without a repercussion for not following it, said principle could quickly lose the value it once had if times ever get tough.

As an example, it makes rational sense to avoid striking or harming someone from another group, due to them finding out and/or retaliating. But any and all strict reason not to do so disappears if you determine for yourself you could "get away with it" undetected. It's a form of "absolute accountability", justice is I mean. Right gets rewarded and wrong gets punished. Nothing wrong with that. Especially today.

Another way to phrase it is, people believe you need justice and/or law and order ie. belief in very real consequences for one's harmful actions to avoid harm that is not conducive to a diverse and free society. And is it not?

Why do lesser people have such an effect on something as personal as your own self worth or composure? To put it another way, how can you declare someone and what they have to say as 'lesser' if they make you think or doubt?

Your question seems to have very little to with morality that isn't of your own consequence.

You can't strictly follow nothing without following something, even if that something is to strictly follow nothing. Interesting I suppose.

Religion = way of life. Doctrine = prescribed information. So, eh, not you as I don't know you but the kind of folk who speak in the same way kind of remind me of this.



Interestingly enough, those who seek to avoid what they deem as forms of control, are more.. uniform then those who don't.

About? Not necessarily About defining limits or extremes both desired and undesired? Precisely.

If I, as someone smaller than you, approached you with a knife and said I was going to slash your throat and tried to. Would you stop me? Why or why not? You have your answer there.

which hasn't been observed. — TheMadFool

Honestly I'd consider a bet where if anyone who reads this or ever will who has actually met/known/or seen a conjoined twin in person wins/loses $100. For each. It's beyond rare. That's not really a standard for assumption.

Conjoined twins share the same universe in terms of ideas and the physical environment. — TheMadFool

How is that different from siblings in strict, if not unrealistic (yet plausible) environments?

Were it true that the brain experiences something like the snowball effect — TheMadFool

I'm confused here. There is no observable experience or phenomenon in human existence that doesn't involve.. the human brain. I mean. It's not some non-existent term I made up based on nothing.

Au contraire, there are more similarities between minds of different people than there are dissimilarities. Explain that. — TheMadFool

It's not that bizarre really. Say a few people share a dorm room with the same computer ie. operating system. It's the same base when opened fresh out of the box. Yet, through time, each becomes customized based on the preferences of the individual.

Snowball effect. They can be tiny yet turn into something huge. Say they play a game or challenge where there are two choices, say right or left. One chooses one, the other chooses the other. One is seen as the winner, the other a fool. Or wrong, at least. Again, that could snowball.

If there was a first only, and five others for goodness sake, and life not only went on but continued (and even if you say we weren't here, that's even more toward my point) and got better. I'm not sure what the huge deal is really.

because they're stuck to each other, share the same experiences — TheMadFool

Not really. Some favor the left side of their body, others favor the right side of their body. Also, perhaps one has a tiny defect or something. The responsible party is likely to treat one differently over the other, whether for better out of sympathy or worse out of.. who knows what. Maybe the responsible party is either biologically detrimented (poor hearing) or socially disciplined (stricter parent happened to be sitting on one side of the table) to respond differently depending on what side of the head the person hears what from more strongly.

There's an infinite list of scenarios where one twin on one side has slightly different experiences than the other.

That. Or just don't be a needy, arrogant, money grubbing arse. And, when you can, do what's right even when it's not "cool" or beneficial to you. Not hard, really.

Of course, as you mean in the contexts of a romantic pursuit. The person, mentally, is either a child or an adult. Age somewhat hints at one or the other but definitely defines nothing. That's what people forget. You either teach someone who's willing, which you can help a juvenile mind steer toward, or you speak to them in their language so long as you don't get surprised when a child acts like a child. Beyond that, common interests and a palatable persona usually prevail.

(so every idea of life after death share an equality in that they are all bullshit...) — Mayor of Simpleton

You contradict yourself. First you say "with a notion of certainty", as opposed to just a plausible theory, like alternate universes. Now, suddenly and somehow, you attempt to cast any theories of a field you've clearly made up your mind on as "bollocks", to be polite.

So seeing as, by your own standards, any theory about an afterlife is nonsensical and to be dismissed, does that not include your own statement? Schrodinger's Cat. It's as alive as it is dead. Until?

but where will they migrate to? Where will they get their food? — Punshhh

Internally? As citizens of whatever nation, assuming it still stands and isn't under some state of emergency or martial law, wherever they damn well please/can afford. What do you think FEMA is for. Assuming we're not talking about the wealthy (who are fine), the average folk will get their food where they always got it from. The wages of honest work. And with any luck, they'll do exceedingly well.

Oh, you mean in some crazy "national collapse" where assumingly the armed forces are rendered nil or otherwise occupied. Unlikely. But in that case, it might get pretty crazy. Again, unlikely.

locked up forever in the psychological little world you created yourself, without even a little window to peek outside — bcccampello

If one is psychological, are they mentally sound and responsible for their actions? If one creates a world for themselves, assumingly of their own free will and desire, what reason would one have to seek elsewhere? Curiosity, perhaps as a result of boredom? Perhaps. I'm reminded of the old adage, as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's hell is surely another man's heaven.

Simply existing [...] is enough for me. — TiredThinker

Selfishness is the common element present in the course of every evil act ever perpetrated against mankind.

Is there anyway that every idea of life after death can be correct? — TiredThinker

Essentially, no. Not simultaneously at least. For obvious reasons.

Someone bluffs you and tries to make your citizens scared you have little choice but to do the same. It's an unfortunate level we've reached in history (though I suppose it's really nothing new) but you know you work with what you're given.

If a threat of violence wasn't an effective means of deterrence it wouldn't be a legal form of assault. The crazy part is WWIII was almost started by accident. Some space junk or even a technical malfunction (which you have to understand is what an adversary would try to say in attempts to stall a response) occurs and people die.. things can get real all too quickly. It's actually all very horrifying come to think of it.

Denuclearize the world!

Edit: It reminds me of an old episode I once saw.. would really appreciate it if someone who knows what I'm talking about would call it out.. I don't think it's Twilight Zone it seems more "Outer Limits" but it easily could've been a movie.. long story short it's in space and leaders of Earth are in a space craft talking (they sometimes refuse to communicate) with a race of aliens and I forget what leads up to it (if the episode or show doesn't start post-conflict) but long story short the human force allegedly blew up an alien populace and their army threatens to blow up Earth and I *think* it was an accident or something other than an intentional act of bloodshed but long story short the aliens demand the leader of the force to be killed to avoid a war- and the human side knows it wasn't on purpose so doesn't want to go along with it.. there's a countdown or something.. forget what happens but it was very dramatic and frankly quite entertaining. Basically something like that could probably happen lol.

Definitely should have an admin shorten his username to the first word. Just looks spammy. Could easily post excerpts for discussion without leading to an external site.

How would you classify the idea that Earth has gravity and we're all bound by it? It's a fact we can observe it- however this fact is due to more complex processes. Basically in theory it's not impossible for the Earth to lose its gravity one day and therefore said fact is no longer a fact.

That's why I consider most all aspects of reality circumstance and little more. Essentially that reality is dynamic and things can and do change not just in perspective and understanding ie. the idea of the Sun revolving around the Earth (at no point was this an actuality however by all observable understanding it did and everyone thought so) but also in large fundamental changes like in the previous example about gravity or if the Earth has a polar shift or something major that effects everything we think we know about something.

Curious as to your thoughts. Fact vs. truth vs. Truth vs. reality vs. circumstance, etc?

It is quite true that Rome has been seen as this historical example what European powers have wanted to be the successors of Rome, but let's not forget that Mehmed II claimed the title of Ceasar of the Romen Empire after conquering Constantinople in 1453. — ssu

That's just because they killed Jesus. And they deserved every bloodcurdling scream that happened as a result of it damn it. But let's hope they learned their lesson and know better this time around.

Oh man am I torn. Based on the premise of said question there are two schools of thought equally and oppositely opposed.

Oh, see. There you go. All you needed to say.

I mean, for debate sake I will point out it's unlikely you're a virologist with access to an advanced laboratory or hang out with people who are and do but, yeah that's your source and obviously there are plenty. Misunderstandings are to be expected.

You have relatively influential people saying, repeating, and so instilling this idea. Do you really think he knew in all absolute terms he was repeating a lie and not just what he believed as truth? Even so, you may not know.

My understanding is as follows, coronavirus is "the flu", an evolved version sure, but this version is not even necessarily more deadly in an intrinsic sort of way simply it is pragmatically due to the fact it is more resistant to what would stop earlier versions of the flu in it's tracks- or at least slow it down tremendously. Basically, it's only more deadly due to the fact the recent immunity built up over generations doesn't "defeat" this evolved version as it would earlier versions. If I'm mistaken about any of these assertions please tell me as it's simple ignorance. And if not, aside from ignorance (ie. just being wrong), and flat out lying (which I couldn't imagine why an average person would do so), if someone is less advanced than you, whether in mind or logic, I mean. What's with the name calling? lol

So essentially, to say something that isn't a complete waste of the other person's time. Makes sense.

Not everyone is selfish. Most are, of course. So your point rings true.

"It" as in the sentient-esque elements you refer to is only a computer chip programmed to perform certain functions. Remove the cover, and you just have the chip/processor and a few wires and sensory nodes. Of course, the argument can be made.. what is human consciousness? Is the brain not just an organic processor and our parts that are associated with senses (eyes, ears, mouth, nose) just again organic sensory nodes?

Personally I'd say since the device is created and programmed by human beings to perform a set of simple functions that individually do very little but together emulates sentience, that's the difference. Then, others can argue what if humans were created in such a way? We really wouldn't know.

In short. It's not complex. It doesn't harbor a mind. It's a series of electric relies that respond (output) based on the input it receives from sensory nodes to perform said function. Again, comparisons can be made but one is ad hoc (?) for a single function with no room for deviation and the other is true consciousness.

I feel like we're advancing way too fast. — Yozhura

Seriously? Lol. Wake me when people figure out how to get from one place to the other without trampling each other to death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampede#Examples_of_stampedes_and_crushes

Take away the tools of bloodshed and what do you have? Fancy steam engines and glorified pagers. No big whoop. Oh and I guess spacecraft that work. Most of the time. Undoubtedly to be used for more bloodshed at a later date.

Are we still acting like this is anything other than a religion-in-general thread that would apply equally to all religions across the board?

Haven't followed the recent arguments but has there been any refuting of my post on this thread earlier as of yet?

Who could say, @god must be atheist .. perhaps God sent angels to dampen the flames and instill values and hope to all who will listen, to the incalculable fury of those who were chosen to oversee the punishment of the damned. Even the stoic patience of an eternal being could grow thin one might imagine.

People like us are often able to intellectualize death away to a safe distance, me too, but I'm guessing that defense will crumble when the time comes. We'll probably never know how we really feel about death until we get there. — Hippyhead

Some say fear is all in the mind. In a way that old adage rings true. Of course, fear and shock can induce a physiological reaction as well ie. anxiety attack, hyperventilation, sweaty palms, trembling, etc. Defense mechanisms to keep one alive and give extra energy to be able to either flee an environment or fight the danger present. Military training teaches you to override this through discipline and attachment to a larger unit/idea- you're something greater than yourself while also being something lesser. Your mission can still be completed even if you don't survive- but it can also fail and other people could die if you give up or give in any time beforehand.

What's the point? Is it like a polite bodybuilder that will avoid you if start getting nervous when he gets closer? lol.

I'd fear a life without death to be honest. Much more could happen. Becoming trapped somewhere, etc.

Not sure. However, the amount of comments shown on the left hand side of the page alongside mentions and discussions is not always 100% accurate- it takes some time to catch up- it should be when actually viewing your profile though. Compare and contrast after a few posts, you may see what I mean.

Other than that- unless you use this site the way I do- you should be coherent enough and your posts should have enough personal value for you to remember them and see if anythings missing by scrolling through your comment history. Unless you're one of those guys who thinks what they have to say is so revolutionary they will take down the entire system if left unchecked. (and if so, welcome, you'll fit right in) :grin:

Edit: Also, sometimes threads in which you commented on are deleted. I was quite dismayed after discovering a comment of mine I was quite proud of was no more. Could be that also?

Is purchasing more legitimate than making? Doesn't someone have to first make, in order for the made to be bought? — MSC

Not inherently. Generally yes, most items bought and sold are 'made' or 'processed' in some way.

Here is a question for you. In the story, which was the more legitimate throw? Should either of the throws made by either people be seen as illegitimate? If so, who's throw was more legitimate? — MSC

Before answering, the reason I consider the story a "random, ridiculous example" is because you made the guy who saved up enough money, purchased an item, read the instructions, and otherwise acts as a patient individual who knows the value of planning and research at first- into an arrogant, petulant, and unrealistically petty child- for no reason other than to do so. While the other man is for some reason valiantly humble and infinitely resourceful. These facts are what will effect the answer to the above questions.

By determining for us the purchaser of the javelin cares little about the art itself (distance throwing) and more about success over other people for purposes of patronizing his own ego- it casts him as the "lesser" or "less legitimate" person. Aside from the fact distance throwing is based on little more than physical strength, which is inexplicably linked to physical size/genetics. Not to say someone larger than yourself who just sits around all day will always be stronger than someone of smaller size who trains constantly with maximum effort- a smaller person can use leverage to topple a larger person who doesn't know what they're doing, but if that larger person uses the same tactic, that smaller person will likely get very hurt very quickly. Just how it is. In short, hurrah for firearms- the great equalizer!

I suppose.. in that random crazy scenario there's some point.

Can I steal your house or wife just because I can do something better with either than perhaps you can at present? Just curious.

I mean, who knows. Maybe he sacrificed time and energy that could have been used to build the strength and endurance needed to throw said item as far just so he could be able to purchase said item legitimately. What then?

You don't just jump from "a single neuron" to "full human consciousness" like that.

?? Link ?? Horrible if made up but if not INCREDIBLY relevant.



Again, claims need to be verified.

All the typical stuff mentioned .. but also being able to have a dialog of considerable length with someone who holds an opposing view. Not everyone can do it.

This really opened my eyes.
What you write makes sense. All these years, I had read 'Death as the equalizer' in a simplistic fashion - no one escapes death. Now, I understand it a tad better. — zoey

Oh God it's spreading. Wait a minute- before you make any conclusions, consider this.

Without death, the weak would still be weak and alive and the strong would still be strong and alive. Instead, both weak and strong will die respectively. Sure, as TMF said, those who have greater resources generally have greater ability for security and as a result longevity. But this would be true regardless if death existed or not. So, both the weak and strong can take solace in the fact that death comes for us all, while the weak have to face this head-on, the strong only have the ability to delay and stave this inevitability off another day. Death is by no means any man's "henchman".

Important to differentiate a single individual whether strong or weak from any number or pool of random people who due to circumstance just so happen to be able to be categorized as "strong"(er). The pendulum of power sways back and forth until the end of time. David and Goliath- for example. At no point was David ever stronger than Goliath, wielding a slingshot or not. Yet. He was able to defeat him using an application of leveraging forces to work in his favor which another was ill-equipped to defend against, perhaps from becoming complacent in one's own strength thus being taken by surprise or otherwise not thinking of all possible outcomes and the defenses needed to defend against said outcomes no matter how unlikely.

Well, name one occasion where the weaker side ends up on top in the game of survival. — TheMadFool

I got one! Say society turns into a supremacist dystopia where the physically (and I suppose for this example mentally, either of) superior are allowed to live in some "super city" where everything is perfect and the rest of us average folk have to scrounge on the outskirts of barely maintained living complexes. This super city the elite live in is walled off and can be sealed off in an airtight fashion just in case. Now say, in their attempts at security and longevity their defenses end up failing or malfunctioning during an outbreak or major weapons malfunction or a nuclear meltdown, trapping everyone inside and resulting in there being no survivors. Stuff like that could happen.

I can't. But that's the point. We live in a world- and for the most (recent) part always have- where technology, innovation, logic, and reason paves the way forward. You use your brain. A tiny, frail man who thinks can poison the watering hole of a city of 10,000 brutes (or why not more) leaving them all dead or incapacitated by morning. The same goes further, see the atomic bomb. You clearly believe in evolution, yes? Why do we live in an age of technology, comfort, and convenience? Why are 95% of all scientists not large, buff, stocky "jock types"? Have you any other explanation why we're not still living in caves, hunting game to survive and beating each other over the head with a club for food and shelter?

Basically, we've yet to hear your definition of strength and whether or not it is primarily physical or mental.