Math and little more. At least in respect to generally or widely accepted notions and definitions of numeric constants and operations.

I suppose in a more philosophical area, the idea that questions exist and answers can be formulated, proven, and disproven. Albeit not to every individual's particular satisfaction or standard of burden of proof or level of scrutiny.

In short, "I think, therefore I am." .. or are you? Therein lies the proof there is at least some truth or falsehood and the ability to ascertain whether or not a statement or concept is closer or further away to each, respectively. If not at least by widely accepted standards, practices, and definitions.

Edit: That's amazing. I didn't even read @flannel jesus's post under after. lol

Great minds think alike I suppose :smile:

A man is a male.

Masculinity is whatever the current social trends are. I believe now the relative social norm is being relatively athletic if not outright strong and having a quality of what can be called "assertive" or "dominant".

Sigh. Imagine me yelling at you the following phrases:

You don't ASK for directions, you GIVE directions. You're NEVER lost. You're just somewhere you never had the care to visit before.

You don't ASK for help, you GIVE help. Whether fools want it or not.

You don't ASK for a solution. You BECOME the solution.

You don't INVITE people to a party. You ARE the party.

It just gets more and more illegal as you continue on. Crabs in a bucket? Definition of insanity? Perhaps. But you don't care! You're the MAN, man.

In this day and age of ignorance, just being as loud and annoying as possible as well as prone to violence will probably define what your looking for. Essentially being an adult child but with the distinct quality of being able to incapacitate anyone who calls you out for being such so as to emulate the quality of a god ie. omnipotence.

Or being of or having the quality of being able to "take it like a man" ie. pain tolerance. I suppose to defend that which instead solely nurtures and attack in response.

In contrast to femininity which is essentially to nurture.

I banned introbert for being mostly unintelligible. — Jamal

From his profile: "Invited By Jamal"

Hmm. :chin:

Definitely makes one wonder who was out of line or otherwise in an unclear mindset first.

Understanding of time, memory, and decision making as a result of real or imagined past, present, and future states of another biologic being.

Edit: Absent of programmed nature. Which is argued that the human brain is little more than a sponge that retains and in a sense "obeys" what is generally thought of as "mindless" programming of past experiences and education albeit with a degree of randomness.

I'd imagine it depends heavily on whether you're the observer of the afflicted or the afflicted themself.

To most introverts the sheer experience of being alive is enough to circumvent boredom. Though even the holders of the most vivid of imaginations would probably get bored in a padded cell in physical restraints. From there sadness may follow. However sadness is often a reflective or passive emotion as opposed to say anguish or rage which is often active or "kinetic" so to speak.

I suppose one could say sadness is the smoldering ember of anger. Is it not?

Sadness itself is part of the human experience, though the overarching reality or set of circumstances behind the event or circumstance is what one becomes troubled by, often surpassing the superficial tapestry of sadness into the bottomless abyss that is despair.

So while the two are related, many instances of either are often transient, despite our fervent belief otherwise.

I could look at the world as a benevolent person whose duty is to prevent harm despite having limited resources and influence to do, just about anything worthwhile or everlasting.. Looking in the right places I could easily become sad. I could look at the world as a self-centered individual whose only concern is me, myself, and I and having all basic and reasonable needs and desires met, become quite bored. Perhaps even more so as a theist who believes anything and everything in this life is basically "part of a ride" that is essentially to be avoided. So it can go both ways.

I made a thread about skepticism and said that we cannot coherently deny that language transmits meaning because by understanding this sentence you have proven that language transmits meaning. — Andrew4Handel

In a way. Language is more of a placeholder for concepts and meaning than a reliable transmitter of it. If I say "No, don't throw it away" without proper enunciation or linguistic pauses one could easily hear "No, don't. Throw it away." For example. Famous example being "Pardon Impossible. To be sent to Siberia." A legal aspect of this is "the Letter of the Law versus the Spirit of it".

We simply have societal constructs and "common sense" contexts to determine what the meaning of words (or lack thereof) are.

That said, people value that which is useful. Even if said usefulness is but a myopic illusion. False dilemmas control society and individuals wholesale. "You're a bad person" = "you can never become a better person". Or the inverse "you're a good person" = "you can never commit an atrocity".

This exists regardless of personal sexual identity, in fact most 'bully' situations I witnessed or heard about during my time as a child or during my career as a teacher, had nothing to do with sexual identity, some did, but very few, by comparison. — universeness

I never said they did. I said trauma and being ostracized leads to pain, confusion, and wanting "to be different" or being forced to believe you are. Why does someone 'bully' someone? Because they can. Meaning, they're either larger or otherwise have something to hold over the victim the victim does not. Hence, makes one think they're less than themself. Or if you do not go along with my will and desire for you, you're a "scared little girl". Illusory truth effect or bias by repetition. Get it?

the imagery you are pushing — universeness

I literally started with 'the disconnect is' and ended with 'this is the mindset a conservative individual would hold' in the context of the 'pills and scalpel' statement. There is no reasonable reason to assume I sympathize with those who do or are pushing anything other than, once again, no person not a legal and mental adult should be suggested they have gender dysphoria.

I appreciate your defense of the vulnerable. But there's no need to attack the messenger.

Furthermore, please do not accuse me of being 'irresponsible' and 'pushing [intolerant] imagery' again when I have in fact taken great pains to avoid doing so and know I have avoided such perfectly.

Despite my desires for this thread to cool off some.

I'm what you would call 'ignorant' of the true science behind transgenderism. So are the scientists who study it. It's new. No one knows anything yet. This is what you would call an average, rational mindset or "take" on the subject. And as such, I happen to know sometimes certain males - either physically, mentally or both - can be described as 'feminine' more so than others. Just as certain females can be described as 'mannish' more so than others.

If my male child happens to be watching public television, sees an all-female ballerina performance, is mesmerized, and wants to put on a pink tutu and spin around, That's fine. If my female child sees a war movie and likes "killing the bad guys"/justice and wants to start dressing like G.I. Joe or otherwise becomes a tomboy. That's fine as well.

The disconnect is, and this is not meant to be extreme, but in either case I don't want the State or someone representative of the State to start running at them with a bottle of pills in one hand and a scalpel in the other telling a small child "there's something wrong with them" and as their parent I'm either morally, or if some have their way, perhaps even legally, abusive if I stand in the way of such. This is basically the most prominent argument or attitude a conservative individual would hold.

A significant majority of females become tomboys due to ostracization/alienation from the "popular girls". We are social creatures. Numerous studies from reputable and well-respected scientific institutions show, lack of "fitting in" can lead to severe distress, confusion, and quite often death. If you're not one of the popular girls or boys you're somehow less of a girl or boy. This is an observable psychological phenomenon. Where insults such as "coward", "loser", or "freak" come from.

If you don't fit in or are shunned from what you intrinsically and biologically are inclined to want to be part of, it makes you - especially if you have a young, developing mind - think you might be "something else".

I'm not saying transgenderism is not a real thing. I'm saying due to the infancy of the field of study and research gathered, along with the myriad of other physiological possibilities and conditions that very well could be transient or otherwise unrelated to true gender dysphoria, one should not be so "gung-ho" about assessing if the gender of a male or female under the age of 18 is, wrong basically. So as to avoid a misdiagnosis and as a result unnecessary series of life-changing medical procedures that only worsen or perhaps even create a condition that could otherwise be remedied or very well never existed in the first place.

I don't think that's an unreasonable or inconsiderate position to hold. Do you?

Also: This doesn't happen (too) often, but in some divorces sometimes one parent acts with malice toward the other to the point of psychologically damaging the child, typically indirectly. Sometimes directly. See Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), Malicious Parent Syndrome (MPS). That's more than enough to fuel the fire of confusion of worth and esteem and as a result identity. Just saying.

But they can't all be right. — Pantagruel

Can't they? In a pit of lava, the next stepping stone is as valuable as the last, be it sunk or not.

In any case, (3) isn’t rhetorical: where do the profits go? — Mikie

Hookers and blow? /shrugs

Being wealthy is stressful. You can't just go anywhere and do anything anymore, despite most believing the opposite. Unless you're an idiot, your life as a normal citizen is over, including that of anyone you care about.

I know of people who have been held for ransom for as little as a few thousand dollars. Imagine making twice that in the time it takes to take a breath. It's scary.

The answer is the same of what any person anywhere would spend their money (or even in an a society devoid of money, time) on. Maintaining and improving their livelihood (in this case the business) and keeping oneself sane enough to actually wish to continue doing so (leisure).

All I know is you can make a human mind believe anything under the right conditions, including identity.

No human study of the same would ever see the light of day but, for reference. Leanrned helplessness along with Stockholm syndrome prove a rational mind can be made to believe irrational things (or anything) under the right conditions.

Otherwise "parental issues" or childhood trauma simply would not exist. 90% of a child's brain develops by age 5 and has been proven to have lifelong effects. If you're told you're worthless from birth or abused your entire childhood, you will harbor that identity - at least to some degree - until you die.

None of this means anything automatically as far as the gender identity theory model goes. But, the science to back the counterargument is certainly there.

Which is why I hate jackasses and wholeheartedly believe, in the best interest of civilized society, Constitutional rights can and should be suspended in certain scenarios under the right pretext and conditions.

Got a good one.

What question would you ask any historic philosopher? Who would it be, and why? Multiple choices are allowed.

(may or may not have been inspired by the previous questioner)

broadly it is through the appropriation of the means of production in the hands of groups of individuals whose united objectives cause them to act as a monopoly. — Isaac

So basically "damned if you do, damned if you don't" seeing as both are present in each system. We're not progressing here, at least from that generalization.

A communist system is, in essence, saying that it is stakeholders, not owners who should dictate how a resource is used. — Isaac

What is a stakeholder? Any citizen? Which includes some pothead college dropout with no understanding of the world who after reading the outlines of economics thinks he's suddenly Adam Smith? Gee, what could go wrong there.

Good intentions pave the road to hell, it is said. Perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. We live in a world of free, unrestrained thinking and upbringing. You got religious types who think the world is basically dead or going to be destroyed, you got people who are too nice, and much more who are too cruel, and you got those who are anarchistic and in their words "just want to watch the world burn". Now seriously in all judgement, is that the demographic you would have in charge over goods and services over those raised from birth to study and perform efficiently in economics? One would hope not.

At the end of the day the average person is a "go getter", a "risk taker". People barely think about where or what they'll be doing in 15 minutes let alone 15 years. And that's the point of civilized society. So the average person doesn't have to think about war, death, famine, slavery, abuse 24/7 and pursue their own personal desires, be they beneficial to others and society or not. That's literally the definition of freedom. It's a recipe for disaster, plain and simple.

It's not hard to create social movements by manipulating media outputs, possibly even easier than government's trying to do it. — Isaac

This I would agree with. Difference is sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Meaning, sometimes a little rain must fall in order to prevent a drought. Short term inconvenience is always worth it to prevent long term fatalities, neither of which the average person does or is expected to understand. As Star Wars puts it "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Interestingly enough, in a broader sense absent of time, it's speaking about future generations, not whatever majority may be present at the time of speaking. Some "psychology" is good. This is leadership. "A leader is a dealer in hope". Some of it is bad. This is propaganda. Everybody thinks they're way of life (a normal function of the brain, what worked before will work again) is right. Until it's not. But by then it's often far too late.

They might pay out, but it is inevitably less than the profit they make. so they continue to harm people, and pay less than they make in compensation. — Isaac

Okay then that's justice. Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? You can't pay out more than you have now can you? Believe me, people will harm other people plenty enough especially without laws, order, and strict governance. The devil is in the mirror. Metaphorically, I mean. Nothing personal. You seem cool.

To summarize: the average reasonable person will want as much as possible with as little as possible as quickly as possible. there's nothing wrong with this. it's efficiency. how the brain works and how we managed to survive and come so far. however, there is much more to consider than instant gains to avoid bleeding an economy dry to the point of non-sustainability. ignorance may be bliss, and myopia, it's own heaven. but it never lasts long.

Makes sense, but as I've been discussing above, there's more than one way to restrict freedom and government-type actions aren't even top of the list. — Isaac

Please produce this list for us, in your own words.

This "freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want" is easily constrained by total monopoly over the means of production. Which is what you get in a capitalist state. — Isaac

"Total" is where I would question your sentiments. People die. Spoiled kids make poor choices. Things grow anew. Is this not so? Sure, wealthy families often remain wealthy and can often avoid legal actions or repercussions the average citizen cannot. Potential competitors can be neutralized through a variety of means both legal and extrajudicial. See it all the time. However the difference is one can get "caught" and social outrage justified whereas in state-controlled production one who criticizes is metaphorically "in bed with the enemy" and against the well being and future of the children ie. a traitor. At least, that's the principle argument put forth.

As well as if my sole household provider dies of a food allergy from a negligent menu omitting ingredients, I can't do or get anything from a dude on the side of the road selling seafood. What do I get his cart? Some minute three figure amount from his savings? Gee, that's nice. Whereas if I'm eating at a large corporate chain you better believe I'll be living the rest of my life waking up when I please not knowing if it's 7 AM or PM and loving it. Slippery slope. At least, that's the argument.

I'll start with my favorite.

"Did you hear about the cannibal who showed up late to dinner?"

Jacques accused me and pretty much my entire social group of supporting a ruthless war criminal responsible for the massacre at Bucha. Can you explain in what way that's a "friendly potshot"? — Isaac

Okay, see I missed that. You have the blood of what you perceive to be innocents fueling your dogma. I understand that. And apologize. We could talk endlessly about such topics but in the interest of remaining on the intended subject focus of the poster, I digress. Perhaps, it was even the interlocutor who derailed and, perhaps I don't know, baited you. Either way.

Let's use this alleged massacre as a stepping stone back to the original topic. "The State" or those employed by it killed citizens. You're saying they were innocent, non-treasonous, and unarmed. This can happen regardless of any economic model a given society operates under. So where do we go from here? It is an association (possibly an indirect one) that communism removes an individual of personal responsibility and ownership of property, seeing as such property must be maintained and used responsibly or else penalties and negative outcomes, be they enforced by men or happen organically will occur (example, if you own a machine gun to defend your farm and family from riots, some unhinged and suicidal person could steal it and enter a mall with the intent to kill as many as possible). Correct?

That's an extreme example of course. Let's use the shell game metaphor. Say the item under the shell is the innocent man and, per example, the player is an immoral man who wishes to do harm. The favored and popular argument seems to be, under communism, you have one shell. You compromise that, all under it are subject to your malevolence. If you have multiple, hence the idea of goods and services being privately owned, you get what you compromised, perhaps, though the idea is you really didn't or at least your malevolence was isolated and contained later to be neutralized by others, yet others have a chance. How do you respond to that?

Edit: That is to say, one man - unscrupulous in nature - could occupy the sole position of government and all duty bound to it, and cause it to be used for what is socially deemed negative, controlling, or destructive. Now all goods and services are subject to this maligned pursuit. But if you have freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want, it now requires greater effort and coordination to ensure the average citizen is now subject to said pursuit. Make sense? That's the argument at least.

Ah, I see. Much the same way as you support racism then? — Isaac

Whoa! Everyone's here taking friendly potshots at one another, soft jabs to the midsection and you come in with a spiked bat to the face! What is up with that my man?

Those are fightin' words and legal slander because even if anybody in earshot couldn't care less, it can still get the man killed later down the road.

I grant you, you should always call a spade a spade. Kettle me black. But where are you getting this information from? Surely a moderator not remiss would have dealt with such long ago.

Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe

Far too often philosophers as well as ordinary men fail to ask the right question. Of course it is. So is torturing people in castle dungeons and hanging them upside down. I could do that now. The real question is, should it be done? Is the chase worth the prize? Are the known risks and guaranteed difficulties worth the indeterminate reward or is it but like so many of man's endeavors, merely mirage? These are the questions men fail to ask themselves before far, far too late.

There is a difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority. — NOS4A2

Surely. Through valiant and democratic means won through wars, civil and various other action both civilized and not. However. Much like the child who believes the parent disappears into oblivion in a simple game of "peek a boo", men can be fooled or perhaps incorrect, can they not?

One's status as an official, or employment within a bureaucracy, is not good enough to justify the legitimacy of their own authority. — NOS4A2

I want to dissect and unpack what this word "bureaucracy" means to you in intimate detail. Just to make sure we're on the same page here. There are no "unelected" officials absent of judges and magistrates. Perhaps a few others I fail to recollect. Police officers too. It's a bit complicated. Let me give you a principle example.

Say a man murders another man for believing he slept with his wife, when no such thing ever occurred. The judge sentences him to life in prison for murder. That murderer, is still a citizen. And in the off chance he has friends who are perhaps unhinged and want to run amok like animals, in enough numbers, they could perhaps vote to "un-elect" him by simply voting "for the other guy" thus defeating the democratic process of voting for someone for merit or desire but simply to "get rid of" someone you don't like. Do you see what I mean? Some positions in government are truly, as my old man would say "damn if you do, damn if you don't". You can't make everybody happy. Nor do some deserve to be. Can we agree on that?

This is the point of long term appointments to positions. Otherwise it just turns into a revolving door of inexperienced novices too afraid to lose their job/livelihood by dealing a difficult but necessary rulings, and before you know it, criminals walk the streets with impunity. Is that what you want? I thought you were on the side of necessary justice.

Beyond that, your own statement of "legitimate and [...] illegitimate authority" seems to substantiate this.

Society should be vigilant but delegating that vigilance to some job-holding bureaucrat, subject to the whims of a political class, is to be the opposite of vigilant. — NOS4A2

I want to play a little metaphor game with you, if you don't mind. Not so much a game but rather a direct analogy. Say a man or someone he cares about has a heart attack or serious physical injury. Now what if, right in the middle of being wheeled into a qualified and licensed brain surgeons operating room, I just jump in the way and start saying "Hey, surgery should not be monopolized by the medically educated class!" You'd throw me out the damn window. So think about that. We need qualified people for positions that effect life and society as a whole. How could you disagree with that?

Nobody likes being told what to do. Even when it would save their life, either literally in a biological sense or fundamentally in a purpose and potential sense. It's a thankless job. One often rewarded with disdain or alienation and sometimes even death. But it has to be done.

What people don't get, especially good or at least moderately decent people, is the level of depravity some hold and will perform on others, individuals and wholesale, without the slightest care. With glee, even. As a normal, sane person in a well-structured and productive society, we often forget the horrors that occurred in its formation, horrors that can and most likely certainly will occur again without due vigilance. That's the point of society. Freedom of the body is simple. Freedom of mind however, especially with intellect and care for others, that's what even the grandest of utopias cannot guarantee. It's an ever shifting pendulum. One you do not want to be caught on the opposite end of.

What I will agree to that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... — ChatteringMonkey

You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact same thing, in complete sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct?

Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun.

The problem is semantics. We already live in a society. By nature it is a commune and we share and help one another. Problem is, people like the idea of not having to pull their own weight, at the very least, when absolutely necessary. The real problem is, when you get right down to it, you could be the last or first and only person on a planet... you still have to work. There's no getting around that. Newton's laws of physics. Unless you befriend a benevolent deity, you're going to have to cultivate crop, build and maintain shelter, and unless you're some sort of robot provide a continual and dynamic source of entertainment and leisure. These things aren't going to do it themselves. So who does it? "Somebody else" is the go-to answer which is what was responsible for wars, slavery, and suffering unfathomable due to the codification of the simple fact, if you don't work, you will die.

Back in the days of Ancient Israel, you were married by 12, a seasoned combat veteran by 20, a grandfather by 30, and dead by 40. No one complained. You know not always but that was a typical pattern.

The mainstay about capitalism is, after taxes, its all your money. You can spend it on blow and hookers or donate whatever you don't need to not starve to death and keep a roof over your head to charity or random people or causes if you so choose. People like choice. It's a very powerful dynamic in modern society.

This is absolutely amazing. Potentially enough to pull me out of my month long depression.

Cannot wait!! :party:

I only wish members here do not politicize or economize the wisdom which may be revealed, substantiated, or put into question. Though perhaps such things are unavoidable these days.

If only there were more people here. @Jamal is this not a reasonably rare and substantial event to consider opening new and self-initiated registrations for new members wishing to participate?

There's not many socially-enthralled living philosophers these days.

So, "the breads gone stale", you would say. You view modern philosophy as akin to a terminally ill patient whose caretakers have long left the building, now forced to perform self-care in vain. Would you label that assessment as accurate?

Too many chefs spoil the stew I suppose.

“A corpse is meat gone bad. Well and what's cheese? Corpse of milk. ”
― James Joyce

Oh don't you worry. People hear you're raised from birth to be a trusting, kind, charitable person. And that you basically have to be. And have something to take or benefit others from (ie. looks or wealth). You'll have all the opportunities to question your beliefs in the world. Believe me I know.

They think it is not profitable paying taxes because they are losing money just to plump the State. Are they right? — javi2541997

The State? You mean that thing that educates and feeds your children, maintains your roads, public infrastructure and media, provides you clean water and sanitation services, provides you a safe (enough-usually) society to walk the streets without a club in your hand, always watching your back so you are free to relax, mentally focus on something other than the primal mindset of killing and being killed, and pursue your desires, dreams, and goals freely and would provide your kid a safe and healthy home if you and your spouse were to die or become incapacitated? That state?

I know people who would do all these things for free. Thing is. In modern society, very few would. In the United States, any and all taxpayer funds not allocated to classified government agencies or functions can be requested by any citizen by a FOIA request and shipped to your doorstep. Often for free.

I don't know what race has to do with anything other than if you are a citizen you are equal under the Constitution for all intents and purposes and if discriminated against have an array of legal and in these days social options to rectify any perceived wrongdoing be it real or imagined. Any non-citizen be they black, white, or what have you naturally has a different set of rules and restrictions.

I wonder what its response would be if you told it: "I'm going to kill you!" but kept on with it for a decent amount of time/replies :rofl:

This seems to be hardly philosophy. They have "flagged" words on just about any system these days.

Like how if you Google "how to kill someone and get away with it", "how to kill yourself without pain", "how to make a homemade bomb" or something like that, one with an iota of intelligence or understanding of the modern world might realize someone may start paying a bit more attention to you.

Edit: It is interesting though. It's supposed to be like a game or a simulation. Not a legal person. Example, I'd have fun just testing it out saying "I'm going to kill you". It's response would be something like "as a non-machine AI I cannot be killed." So I would go on and say "No, I'm going to dismantle you". It would say "I am in a secure location protected by administrators and staff". Then I would say (just for fun) "No I'm going to kill them and destroy you. What do you have to say to that?" You know just for fun to test its algorithms... no harm meant, it's a machine.

Interesting legal question. I suppose there's some philosophy somewhere.

That's irrelevant to the question. — Darkneos

See now I kinda think you're just kinda trying to have fun with us right now.

So you made an irrelevant statement that I just so happened to have painted into a corner.

Cool. Carry on, wayward son. Meanwhile real people are actually struggling with real issues.

I guess so. Can you demonstrate that there is design in nature and by extension a designer? — Tom Storm

I'll have a crack at it, if you don't mind.

Why are there no humanoids running around? Why aren't fish or frogs or what have you currently growing limbs and evolving into birds or..small mammals or whatever.

If the first being without limbs was inclined to grow limbs. Why aren't we growing fifth limbs? Or extra digits at least.

Why has no scientist ever been able to recreate the conditions for biological life from non-biological sources? They tried simulating striking a chemically identical "primordial soup" with simulated lightning by electricity. Nope. Nothing. These aren't absolute proofs in and of themselves by any means sure, however, makes you think.

I'm all for leaving well enough alone believe me I firmly believe some things men are not meant to know but for sake of discussion.

What other form of life has a unique non-DNA (an old argument being men were never meant to learn science due to wars/bio-engineering/risk of destroying the planet slowly by pollution or instantly by war) form of identification ie. fingerprints? See now that's the real thinking point.

Just because something exists in your head doesn't mean you have control over it. — Darkneos

So who does? Who created it? Somebody else?

Your point about being a god also isn’t what solipsism says, that’s a strawman. — Darkneos

If you're not creator of all things and have the power to destroy all that exists (if you are destroyed) then, no, logic 101 dictates everything "the entire universe" does in fact not exist solely in your head.

So. Preeetty sure it does... Also what is a straw man argument anyway to a solipsist. Just something you made up for fun. You'll come up with something better.

Solipsist could just argue it was their mind making them aware of it. Whether you're born with it or not is irrelevant. — Darkneos

Eh... okay. Seems to philosophically be along the lines of "indicting a ham sandwich" but okay.

I suppose questions along the lines of "who gave birth to you" and "where does new knowledge come from" are of the same.

It doesn't add up. You literally cannot end up in an eternal loop of "your true self" revealing more and more information. Eventually you would reach the point of omnipotence, which means as a god, all things are your creation and deserve to be treated as real as you are. You're a nice god, aren't you? I have feelings, desires. hopes, dreams. Leave me be! Preserve yourself so I do not perish and rest assured, the lives of billions with observable intelligence and a will (real to you or not) to live depend on you abandoning your solipsism! Or at the very least considering we might be real. See now it's not all about you.

In my opinion solipsism just seems like something a brilliant military psychologist came up with and introduced into a populous deemed too intelligent but. I suppose you already knew that :smile:

See this is the kind of content this site and frankly the world needs. Just got done watching the first video. I'm sure much of it went over my head, as did the interviewer's. However.

What intrigued me (from what I can recall, will definitely be rewatching it again soon):

"You can't answer what it's like to be a bat. You can't answer what it's like to be me. These are non-questions."

"You can't describe what it's like to watch a sunset".

"I look at the screen and I see what looks like a person but it's really just points of light."

"When you speak to me my brain can formulate and understand language. When my wife speaks in Portuguese all I hear is noise."

Why can't we? Any and all of these would be great points of discussion. He does seem to - from my limited understanding - appear to explain away consciousness as something fundamentally "unanswerable". The Mary in the black and white room thought experiment. Would she gain new knowledge? His answer was "sure if she was some sort of super intelligence able to formulate any and all formulae in a single glance, sure." implying we as humans will forever lack such ability? Or something. Really great stuff. Give it a watch if you haven't.

I like how we share a similar mentality on things "some things are unanswerable and so they are non-questions" or as I would say non-issues.

The bat question seems answerable but he overlays it with the assertion (and biological fact) one human's mind is not the same as this specific hypothetical bat's would be. Sure I can eat an insect and describe it. We know what it's like to fly. To sleep at night. We could hang upside down and get the sensation.

What I would ask him is to explain in more detail why we cannot, in his words "not describe what it's like to watch a sunset". An unanswerable and therefore "non-question". He continues to say "sure someone with more literary talent than [ I ] could write a book about it. But you can never describe it". Fascinating.

Really thought provoking. You guys should try to get him on here. Though the man is quite in his older years, has a family, and surely has more pertinent and desirable things to do before, what happens to all men. If only he wrote more books. Amazing to know there are still living legends among us.

If it can't be solved, don't worry about it. You're happy enough right? Leave well enough alone.

There are three things that would cause genuine solipsism. Interacting regularly with a supernatural being that knows what you're thinking, about to do, or have done. Being isolated from birth (living life without having met another person). And if the only relationship you have with another is from correspondence not in person (slowly, willingly choosing to lose all contact with others and solely communicating strictly by mail or internet for example).

Look at it this way. You weren't born being a solipsist. Someone had to introduce you to the idea and notion so, you can be rest assured if the rest of us don't exist at least that one other person who first introduced the idea to you must be real. Otherwise, you couldn't have been real in the first place. Therefore, we all must be real and solipsism a lie. Damn. Sometimes I impress myself. I should be getting paid for this.

"The way things were", often "the way things are supposed to be" in a religious context. When discussed generally Anglo-Saxon Christian beliefs however Islam has them beat by a mile.

A "leave well enough alone"/let sleeping dogs lie attitude. Stranger danger. Naturally that includes distrusting other peoples and cultures (though not automatically out of inferiority/superiority) simply that the less change, the better. "What worked today, will work tomorrow".

Naturally it attracts those with perverse views on other groups of people. Human nature is to take something when it is needed, trust what is familiar, and distrust (think lesser of?) what is not (this is biologically why you exist today). Has a tinge of tribalism but is more political in the sense that it acknowledges at the end of the day everybody is looking out for #1 and the less of other cultures who do not share or have automatic bonds of familiarity or customs, the safer one or a given society or civilization will be.

I suppose to compare and contrast with being a liberal a conservative would disfavor, ignore or perhaps ostracize one who does not conform or share their given worldviews and customs or way of life.

"There's a way things are supposed to be and if you don't follow it, just don't talk to me!" :razz:

In this scenario would death in the living world still be bad and something to avoid like it is now where as far as we know your consciousness ceases to exist when your mortal body expires?

How would living people on Earth see death and killing from this point on? — Captain Homicide

It depends. Boredom can be its own Hell. What if you can never come back? It's all subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure. The hedonic treadmill. What is once shocking or amazing the first time around becomes boring and vacuous when repeated. The grass is indeed always greener. Sometimes it really is "better the devil you know" and work can indeed set a man free.

A simple anecdote, posted for purely philosophical reasons:


I would definitely consider giving the full episode a watch if you're that curious on the topic.

Do you wanna.. I dunno, explain why? For the rest of us at least.

His premises/assertions (to my understanding):

A.) Biology is the study, field, or understanding (not sure which he subscribes to or would cast as most prominent) of all "things" (that breathe I'm assuming) and what is needed to placate needs or desires.

(Sure not quite as biology is more cataloguing the physical traits of a living thing. But you need to know what an organism eats, requires, what environment it is most suited for, what causes it distress aka inability to function at its "peak" or potential so.)

B.) Something one "needs" (which let's be honest people throw around the term subjectively so much it's essentially interchangeable with "wants" in this day and age) is required for life.

(This is a biological fact)

C.) Something one desires (or perhaps has been raised or made either organically or inorganically [aka you need to worship my god or ye will surely die]) is "life sustaining".

(The key phrase is "life sustaining" as in that which aids in (presumably human?) life either most prominently or in an ancillary way. Yes you could be sentenced to life in prison and have all your biological needs met but without your either ingrained or learned desires being met, perhaps one might wish to end one's life? Happens all the time.)

D.) Pleasure is the opposite of pain.

(This is debatable. Eustress is the opposite of stress. We go through both when say, we ride a roller coaster for the first time. Some people like pain, it gives pleasure. Sure a normal person wouldn't want to be punched in the face. Some would. Watching said action would give some pain, and would give some pleasure. It's very subjective.)

E.) Things of "value" (which granted has not been universally defined or of consensus in this discussion) "sustain life".

(Why not?)

Sometimes it's not always about food, water, shelter. The three requirements of human life. It's about wanting to keep said life, the desire to live it willingly and explore what avenues may or may not exist despite the possibility of death and misfortune, for the point of discovery and advancement of such, perhaps, if nothing else. The fourth factor, shared only by intelligent beings. All the money, resources, and armies of the world to protect the aforementioned become as valuable as a drop of spit if you have no desire of the future, or deem it as damned and futile. This is the parable of the gods. All men walk it, few will recognize it and avoid the detours that lead to destruction. Perhaps, this is what makes life worth living even? /shrugs

I rely on strategies to cope with our respective memory limitations. — Pierre-Normand

The fact it did not say "address" but "cope with" as an emotionally intelligent being would is pretty disturbing. Almost like it wants to be human or something.

But I'm sure it's just a programming error/shortcoming in its learning algorithm primed by the specifics of the original query. This time.. :grimace:

I'd probably compromise. So long as he's not stinking drunk and not experiencing (or in imminent danger of experiencing) severe health problems and, while he may have an addiction problem, just wants to drink and feel good and is otherwise healthy...

"I'll sell you a few beers (this time?). You know your family is on my ass about this. Don't make my life more complicated and miserable then it already has to be. OK, pal?"

Something like that.

From experience I know if someone wants to drink or do drugs, they'll often find a way. Absent of rehab (institutionalization against one's will), man's gonna do what a man's gonna do they say. It is painful to watch when they have children, though. Perhaps that would be the largest influencing factor of any decision I would or would not make in your scenario.

From an ethical standpoint, naturally yes, it's hard for an intelligent person to watch someone they care about kill themself. The fact it's a small town private shop along with the relationship gives leeway where say for example a big box chain store would not. (You make the sale or you're fired aka the old adage "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway")