Maybe aliens will show up and give us all little ray guns that can grow a cheeseburger into the size of a house thus solving world hunger. You don't know.

True. Using psychology to manipulate is a betrayal. It exploits something intimate and innocent. — Tate

You don't "manipulate" your car to avoid crashing into a ravine you cannot see and perishing in agony, you maneuver it. You don't "exploit" a child by putting them in the class they will actually be able to gather information from just because their ignorance is "intimate and innocent", you advance them.

Where do you draw the distinction between education and manipulation? A teacher offering snacks to whoever passes their 3rd grade division exam is some sort of fascist tyrant bent on warping the human mind? Eggs and bacon while high in cholesterol and unhealthy fats are - whether fortunately or not - pretty darn good. If you ask Americans if they had to choose one or the other would they prefer a happy life or a long life, what do you think the majority consensuses would be? To promote this through advertisement, science (skewed and incomplete or not), and ease of distribution is - whether foolish or not - democracy in action.

The quotes you mention are simple facts of human nature. Not hidden or "secret" in any way as you are quoting public statements. The human mind is easily manipulated and controlled, especially when you think you know it all, such as a child often does. Informing the public of this fact is something of a social duty and should be rewarded. Don't shoot the messenger.

Restraint? Not simply being/becoming tired, wounded, bored, or simply not being hungry as to why for example a bear would not attack another being or stop before the attack becomes fatal, but actual restraint. Something like compassion. People point to videos of animals showing "compassion" but I think it's wholly possible people are confusing true compassion with simply becoming preoccupied with curiosity and/or learned behavior along the lines of Pavlov's dogs or why treats are used for training dogs. Thoughts?

Perhaps it's just an advanced understanding of consequences. "If I do this I might go to jail" or "people will find out and come after me", even "God might punish me", etc. I'unno. :confused:

Edit: Beaver dams are actually pretty advanced. They're little lodges and together something like a little city. Sure not like a human city, perhaps because since it meets all their beaver needs as-is, it doesn't have to be. Despite their size, ant cities are incredibly advanced and they even practice agriculture within them. Fascinating.

The post about "humans build cities" and all the innovations (medicine, exploring and surviving in hostile places be it a parched desert, a frozen tundra, an oxygen-deprived mountain, or space itself is unique seeing as few animals with the exception of microscopic life can "survive anywhere on Earth") would probably be my answer as well but it has a caveat attached. Animals can't perform surgery or splint a broken limb but they can lick their wounds and kill bacteria, sometimes performing medicine. They can't build a spaceship and go to space but they can explore otherwise hostile environments using objects, not a great example but a snail or similar animal that moves into a shell. These seem almost laughable to compare to human endeavors but scaled down to their needs and abilities, it works for them and frankly isn't too dissimilar.

Do a Venn-Diagram between any intelligent animal and yourself, or just to be sure, a well-respected and intelligent person. Therein lies your answer.

This is a non-answer but surely draws the point home. Understanding of the passage of time and its ability to utilize it to extend what is beyond yourself. Not mechanistic acknowledgement of impulse based on biological analysis vetted by either direct process or evolutionary "killing floor" (though that's a theory as well). Creation. Preservation. Beyond "I hunger", beyond "I am here, you are there", "this works, therefore it will work again". Imagination. Dreams. The squirrel stores nuts away for the winter because every squirrel that did not froze to death, rather it is probable the modern squirrel was singled out by said now-frozen-to-death squirrels at the squirrel luncheon.. whatever they have and so had to store them elsewhere. The squirrel who stored his food elsewhere lived, those who didn't, did not. Just as the beaver builds a dam. It knows not what it does, it simply does. A monkey can paint a cave painting if taught to, just as cats flick their tongue at you if you try to give them a kiss, or a dog "shakes hands" with you.

Understanding of Passage of time meaning past, present, and future. A dog remembers the face of a person who abused them and so experiences fear or other emotion if the same person is around. The same dog will also know when they are being rewarded and showered with affection. Also (though I can't name the study) a dog in a cage with other dogs in slaughter who witness dogs before them being killed will sense dread and impending doom. This is something like elephants "mourning" their dead. They see their reflection in a pristine pool of water as they drink. They see one another as they grow up and such image becomes a visual cue of biological value, the herd moving together is strong, a still version of oneself is troublesome and biologically "off".

There are stark differences between animals and people. Though I agree the definitions for both, rather distinctions between have somewhat lost meaning as of late.

A weak person, who is afraid of all kinds of suffering or violence, will be overly protective of others. — M777

I disagree. You're conflating the idea of not simply "going along with the flow" and accepting suffering or violence or most importantly lack of innovation to prevent undesirable things as some sort of negative attribute. All while using the very same technology and innovation that solely exists as evidence to the contrary to spread your archaic and frankly barbaric and animalistic views of humanity. It's easy not to give a crap about someone or something else not immediately relevant to you. When did this become "brave" or even positive? This I believe you should look into. That or flee from. Though perhaps for the good of advancement of humanity it's best you stay right where you're at. It'll all be fine. At least, you will live and whatever else by your own proclaimed code. No one could possibly be blamed.

Math may be factual and absolute but our senses and understandings are not.

That is to say, take the matryoshka doll for example. You have two in front of you. Any able-visioned person not familiar with the item would conclude you have two dolls. However, if you know more than what can be currently seen (modern science) you would there is in fact much more than two. Same can be implied with half-life and various chemical reactions not yet understood.

Say you know every chemical reaction with 99.99% of possible elements except for one unknown combination never tried before. Due to not properly understanding the nature of it's reactivity you may reach an unexpected result. This is how medicine and chemistry works. The math is not wrong, per se (that is to say, yes, 1 understood value and 1 understood value will equal 2 or it's expected value), simply that there are additional variables that are unknown.

1. Catapult/cannon? A playground slide?
2. Ghillie suit/just dressing like everyone in a crowd?
3. Indoor skydiving? Magnetic suit over an opposite magnet?
4. Wireless charging?

As long as the person can leave, even if that would surely result in death or a worse, less dignified life under a more cruel master (which is why such policies restricting movement were instituted in the first place), they are not slaves per se. Not any more so than anybody else. You could be the only person on Earth, and you'd still work and eat by the sweat on your brow. Unless you're in the Arctic.

This is a paradox one might come across if they consider God's omnipotence. If the answer is yes, then there is one thing he can't do (lift a heavy enough rock), which contradicts the definition of omnipotence (being able to do anything). The same applies if the answer is no. How would you solve this paradox? — Cidat

Well, and I'm sure there's a fancy term for this but something created with omnipotence is outside of "everything", at least everything created. You can go back and forth but compare it to a computer game. You can just keep creating or "uncreating" a thing or non-thing because.. you can. It is a major tenet of most religions that there is a supreme being that can do something you cannot, typically, anything or just about. A logician would call this "moving goal posts" and not a philosophical discussion.

Everything we now use as second nature was once "woo-woo" or unrealistic fantasy, often bordering if not exceeding the threshold of mental illness.

It more or less order: running water, seafaring, ocean exploration, flashlights, flight, text messaging, etc..

Yet pessimists have yet to be breeded out. Goes back to entertainment. Curious, huh?

Help is different than military aggression (or is it lol). If you want to be a soldier you join an army, wear a uniform, and lose your status as a civilian. All's fair they say...

Or become a secret agent. Those guys are cool. I'd become one myself but at the end of the day you'd be a fool to assume who's really calling the shots and what their true intentions advance.

Imagine if a meteor struck a country and their military was crippled. Everyone would be there to "help"... when push comes to shove I suppose.

Base human nature unrefined and untaught is little different than that of a worm or parasite. You take what you can when you can and try to not die. Perhaps invent a few barbarically inefficient things along the way to aid in said processes.

Weeee! :grimace:

Edit: Scientific cross-reference and proof of weeee provided per request.

it's going to become patently clear in the end who comes out on top — Baden

But back to philosophy. We have perspective. I'm assuming you're in your 40s perhaps 50s, no matter. Your "in the end" is limited to your lifetime, erm depending on your religious beliefs of course lol

Sure it becomes unrealistic, the idea that an incredibly small number of people can ever become a majority. But to assume what you "know" (what is "patently clear") when you close your eyes will be a constant absolute and someone else's reality (perhaps even you, again religion permitted) who opens their eyes in say fifty or a hundred of even a thousand years later is an affront to philosophy and the dynamic nature of reality itself.

Granted you're betting on a winning horse. Unfortunately, the pay outs are notoriously low. Ironic, perhaps.

All warfare is based on deception.

- Call of Duty (or maybe Sun Tzu. idk!)

Whether it does or not, hypocrisy surely does. As in, any nation, group of people, or even individual has a right to kill, obliterate another if they are so able to or perhaps in need to do so. Who is to say either entity be it plural or individual is simply failing to cultivate what they need to prevent such action by their own inability or other state. Everyone's cause for death and destruction is usually just, if not in their own mind. So. There are two factions.

Of course, things are not always black and white. We know what we are told and allowed to know. Little more. I suppose, in short, an unjust war that was successful will likely never be heard of after the fact.

Unfortunately the kind of independence you ask for would be illegal, fatal, or at least require being dropped off in a fire station baby box.

You could continue on throughout stages of life, each progressive hypothetical becoming less and less ridiculous and relevant to your point I'd assume you'd think. But at the end of the day, it's the same dynamic. There's someone who can protect you either by declining to harm you simply because they could (be it a larger person, random criminal, government, alien race, what have you) or to do so directly out of benevolence when you have an active and unaddressed need. In an open and free society where you can address your own basic biological needs (food, water, shelter) this is pretty much true. With the one caveat of the fact if your governing bodies military were to become defunct others would perhaps come in and change what they please, and of course due to your alliance toward said government would offer resistance, and in such a scenario would result in.. a few things. None which one would call "good", based on widely accepted standards and definitions.

So, at the end of the day we're all connected in a society, and this connection is a dynamic relationship that may result in one being "receiver" or "supplier" or perhaps both at any given moment in time. Unless you're literally on a remote island or jungle, forging your own resources to address your needs from the surrounding environment. In which case we wouldn't be communicating.

The real question is when did understanding, that which we call understanding, perhaps consciousness of existence come into.. coherence?

Germs and other single-celled organisms no doubt exist on other extraterrestrial terrains. They produce, mingle (perhaps?), and also die. It's a multi-faceted question. Why is our idea of consciousness in vocal and visual communication any less rich than theirs simply because we cannot perceive it?

How do you exist lol.

Like what do you do for a living? Legitimately curious.

That is one thing a machine could never offer I suppose. Entertainment. Morbid or not.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You put yourself quite 'into it' as it were, just now.

More broadly speaking, it is a touchy topic. Easy to turn into a purposeless philosophical roundabout through ad hominem. If you want to talk about women as equals, allegedly, you will not use their physical attributes, of which they had no hand in creating or forming, as a form of identity.

In short, if you criticize a male when he is wrong, which though "being wrong" is subjective can become objective (or at least more so) when it can be measured and compared against real world statistics and professed rights and wrongs (morals) of the individual you are speaking to, one is not "out of line" by suggesting you can criticize a female equally.

Now, this is not to ignore the immoral acts that in my opinion have always amounted to mental illness (and now do so legally), ie. (abuse of women, slavery, violence in any form) that to this day impact certain demographics, simply that things are much better than they were before and such facts need be considered.

I like to think we're not actually living, that is to say here and now in the way we're told to believe we are, but rather reaching the stage of half-life that will start the living process. For example, for all biological intents and purposes (some intensive) we're really just dying- only with a steady pulse. Homeostasis is being less and less efficient until it can no longer sustain the heart and lungs. Then we reincarnate as old beings who actually get younger but with the knowledge of an entire lifetime until we either A.) decide to stay when and where we reach contentedness ie. children of God, B.) start it all over if you've been unable to reach nirvana ie. son of Man, or C.) ... simply exit ie. dead in Christ/Bosom of Abraham. Minus debts, of course.

Is procreating and willfully bringing a child into this world, a situation rather, in which their outcome is grim to be called murder, manslaughter, or simple ignorance?

Should it be punished? If so, how?

Law of man is little more than opinion enforced by action that makes one unable to protest or circumvent it, often through inability to even experience or process it, ie. death or incarceration. This changes quite often throughout the course of time. In the scope of this argument, primary use and position of the terms "lawful" or "unlawful" is murder toward any further discussion. The real question is, would this be lawful or unlawful?

The reason for everything is a thing that came before it. — Ree Zen

Not the radius of a circle. Well, actually yes it's just depending on the point you started from (your moment of observation in time) you will eventually reach a point where everything can only be because something comes after it, which also came before it. It's one of the great paradoxes of hypothetical physics and continuity of the universe. I wouldn't try to figure it out though. The last guy who did has to be in a white room 23 hours a day now and requires assistance using the restroom.

Is a black hole pure nothingness? What about anti-matter? Just because the reason for everything is a thing that came before it, does not mean that definition has any sort of correlation or dependence on "nothing". Everything could, in theory, blow up and create nothing. You know why not right. You wouldn't know. Maybe it is an intrinsic quality of "nothing" whenever it exists to create "something" after a set amount of time. Maybe even just a single atom. And over time, we end with entire universes. Again why not right. You wouldn't know. Just because it "doesn't make sense" does not mean you can absolutely rule it out by virtue of your limited understanding alone. Anti-matter is inherently extremely volatile and explosive creating immense explosions from nearly no particles at all. Who's to say... the spirit world or realm or afterlife is one of antimatter that is exactly the same as ours, but better. Here we have water, there we would have anti-water. Here we have fire, there we would have anti-fire. This would explain why ghosts are always exploding when caught.

Furthermore who's to say time is not linear but something of a loop or contained, enclosed and periodically self-resetting system (a universe). You know, just in case things go wrong. Which based on history seems rather likely eventually.

On a side note, domesticated cats have smaller brains than the wild cats. Their neural crest cells had decreased in size as they no longer experience threats like in the wild. — L'éléphant

Um. You realize domesticated cats are exponentially smaller than wild cats, right? That kinda goes along with the whole size thing. A blue whale's brain is 20 pounds yet all it can do for the creature is let it know when to make weird noises and not suffocate to death.

Should we adjust our thinking about intelligence and redefine what it is today? — L'éléphant

Maybe but, naw...

We can't use technology today to argue that we're smarter. — L'éléphant

Oh but we can use it to argue that we're dumber. As Trump would say "bing bing bong".

There's a measure for that that has nothing to do with the intelligence we are talking about here. — L'éléphant

I would hope so, seeing as you've neglected to include any details of it.

Interestingly enough, pretty much. You're not far off. I'm responding more to the title of course.

If you have to ask, I would not recommend it as a main source of income, no.

Higher cognitive functioning.

That or marking our territory with inks and dyes instead of just urine, though I've seen both.

I would say embarrassment but I've seen my dog sulk before when he went on the carpet. Also sigh out of boredom or frustration when I would work on projects for hours on end.

What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

"Seems" is a weasel word for perception. Which is dependent on several factors that are ultimately irrelevant to higher understanding. A homeless man high on PCP who runs into freeway traffic thought that avenue "seemed good" at the time.

You feel the need to quantify "nothing" as in no thing with "literally" perhaps for our benefit sure, as if we are unable to grasp the concept. Perhaps you are projecting your inabilities and shortcomings on us? Granted, it is a mind bending concept for most so moving on.

Obviously the "something" was not actually from nothing but rather your idea of nothing. Common human trait, cognitive bias, aka being told you're wrong or in short "no". Makes you question your life choices and simultaneously your sacrifices made. This is a biological survival mechanism, nothing more.

An "infinite past" is again prodding at the idea that your own judgements and beliefs may be incorrect. You will be biologically disinclined to consider this possibility.

In short, it varies depending on person to person. Basic psychology.

I find it interesting how the two sentences are typographically identical yet visibly different. Was this perhaps your point, OP?

Does it make sense to recognize your original post as anything but incoherent nonsense? You have to draw a floor and ceiling somewhere when your mind is functional, such as it is.

Covid variations are nothing more than a desperate effort of the virus to survive. — dimosthenis9

This may very well be the best discussion ever proposed in the history of reality.

It will probably be deleted soon.

So let's not talk about complex creatures like humans and animals. Let's talk about the tiniest forms of life(bacteria, virus. etc) and here are the questions — dimosthenis9

A star has a life cycle that not only creates and destroys entire galaxies but apparently (allegedly) creates what we call life itself. So how can we not talk about all understandings of what life and energy is. Just because you can't detect the thoughts or understand or decode them doesn't mean they don't exist.

What is a unique point that "your book" talks about. Is it worthy of an independent discussion? Why not create one. Again, just typing like as if you and I were having a conversation no fancy links or references to this and that chapter just a simple discussion.

our 'visionary' tech billionaires are riding on the back of a beast they can't control or understand — ajar

I can really appreciate this allegory or metaphor, it is a very good one.

Of course, isn't science? Language? Life itself for that matter? Where does one draw the distinction between something you can control and understand and something worth pursuing?

It is very difficult to convince a large population of people connected by information which includes history and factual information like news as well as sensory stimulation and disruption such as pain and grief that active violence is ethical. Passive or potential violence is more commonly used ie. negligible manslaughter or the law of robotics "allowing a human to come into harm through inaction". "I was doing something more important" and perhaps you can convince others that you in fact, were. Who knows, perhaps as an absolute fact you were. However, perhaps it's an equal fact you knew whatever you were doing would not last or result in a net positive of life so you were in fact just doing nothing intentionally. But that's difficult to prove. After all you know what they say never assign something that can be explained as stupidity or ignorance as malice or intent. Something like that. Is it right? You tell me.

I'm reading a book that describes what happened fundamentally to voting in the US and how disenfranchisement, framing, and resentment have allowed major corporations and political parties to dominate polling groups to vote for their own interests. — Shawn

Maybe they voted for it and therefore were able to reach such an alleged position by again exactly what you said. What is this idea that effort will never equal reward and it never should?

nonphysical pain — Agent Smith

Isn't all sensation metaphysical at the end of the day.

Am I making sense? — Agent Smith

Does it matter? If it does there will always be someone who can make less sense than you yet completely mess with your sense of sense itself. I hope this makes sense.

Yes, it will. The crucial point is danger/threat has to be detected. Pain is just one of many other, less unpleasant, ways of achieving that end. — Agent Smith

Again I ask, will it though. Sometimes the most damaging pain, is that which is not physical and so does not heal with time. Nor can it be detected by the measures which you speak. Otherwise, how could it occur?

Even if pain is removed, we'll still be alright so long as we replace it with a painless danger detection system. — Agent Smith

Will it though. Logic doesn't seem to register as much as a faint blip on the radar for some.

The worst most dehumanizing thing you can do to a person or group of people is outlaw their progression toward your own whilst not just believing (which could be random irrelevant fiction) but simultaneously and publicly continuing to call them inferior or lesser by proxy of moral high ground (which now becomes real world fact).

Is this relevant? The real question is if it's not what is going on between the ears of those who wish to suppress it.

honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views: — Albero

The only thing I know is that I know nothing. Except what people who are no longer here that I can't ask for an explanation in greater detail say. I know they know something...

It comes down to incentive. Nobody really wants to get out of bed and go to work. That is to say every man would prefer to wake up at the time of his choosing, greeted by beautiful women (or if you're a chick, beautiful men I suppose) being served an elegant and hearty breakfast and various other delights. Then to be waited on hand and foot throughout the day, lunch, chores, errands, arrangements, entertainment, etc. That's normal. Until you realize every person is a person who wants or at least deserves no less than what you desire on a whim. Without degrading this world any further, and acknowledging all it's potential for pleasure and true contentedness, we live in a world of death, rot, plague, and decay which produces a natural response and that response is often greed, indifference, cruelty, and malice. So. What do we do? Lay around all day, perhaps committing acts of unspeakable cruelty to continue this hell or work and try to alleviate these things for ourselves and others? The choice is clear. No matter your preferred economic model.

people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.) — schopenhauer1

Oh look at that I don't have to eat raw meat and sit staring at a blank wall like a box of merchandise in a warehouse until I'm required. Yay!

What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them. — schopenhauer1

Really though, I've always said capitalism is an aggregator of talent and leadership not a muzzle or feedback loop for it. That doesn't mean the system consistently meets its intended purpose 100% of the time, not by far. You can cheat, get ahead as an individual by cutting corners and actually harming the company and its future, which at least for that specific scenario makes said system counterproductive. Of course, if that happens to be the case and the company folds, most CEOs as you say have greater benefits than standard employees and those standard employees can often "just find another job" especially if they have done a great job and have an outstanding record that should and will raise the eyes of potential recruiters and employers. Nobody is really shafted too greatly, at least in an irrecoverable way.

Many of the anti-capitalism arguments seem to involve the whole "daddy's money" ie. inherited wealth/opportunities thing. Someone, regardless as to whether he built his empire from scratch and hard, honest work or not, who has a kid is more than likely to be "very well off" from essentially none of their own doing. This is natural and a very real biological response.


But it's not about the how it's about the why. Just because you happen to be a rich and intelligent, hardworking CEO who made millions out of a few dollars doesn't mean your kid is going to be able to maintain your legacy or even not be abjectly horrible at management. A stranger might simply be better. For the company, your sense of "peace" as you close your eyes and breathe your last breaths in old age (some people need concrete evidence of their longevity to comprehend immortality and thus spirituality, I was like that and in many ways still am so I can't talk down).

Point being, that's why monarchies, societies, and entire civilizations fail. Human genetics are random. Some "legendary fabled leader of olde" has a kid that's just for lack of more adequate words, a complete shite. It can happen. Or a psychopath. Or worse a dumb one. It just didn't work. So with that truth I can say the anti-capitalism argument has plenty of fight left. I'm not convinced personally but the reasons to be are plentiful. To each their own.

Also: I found this draft I pretty much remember typing before the above so just thought I'd include it:

You can't be "voluntarily" poor without not only being denied the side of life given to those who are poor non-voluntarily but also being slung the responsibilities (if not just to protect) those who are not have. Therefore, you are not "voluntarily" doing anything, especially if you can talk to people who will help you out.