1. God is not evil.
2. God did not create evility.
3. Humans have free will and they created evility with their moral displestitude.
4. The devil exists. — god must be atheist

2.) Evility was not "created" rather something greater than good or evil "freedom" or "choice" was created and so evility is merely one of many by-products of a creation that while detested is of no greater significance than any of the many others.

3.) See 2.)

4.) In mainstream Christian theology the "devil" is one of at least (assuming they are numbered incrementally) 665 other beings and possesses nothing special other than "being attractive" and apparently being able to convince others and gain power and influence that way..

Again, the average reader will see us as debating whether Santa Claus prefers to be called "Nick" or "Mr. Claus" but for what it's worth these are the facts of the chosen topic.

Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires? — Bartricks

Simple. Create a dude, ask him what he thinks about it. After all, that's the subject of the matter. I know people who love life and writhe at the idea of it ending or not existing. I know people who can't stand it and swear this is Hell who want to die. We all do. If it's good, go for more. If not, back to the drawing board. Nothing to lose sleep over.

Some people love a good life or death challenge. Others prefer peace and the stability that comes with predictability. You can't make everyone happy all the time so you know what they say, "one man's morality..."

Is monarchy the best form or kind of government? — Average

You use different tools for different problems don't you? If you're an up and coming agricultural society slowly transitioning from a pastoral one due to finding a place to settle long enough that people seem to tolerate, you have to decisively correct problems as they happen when they happen (famine, invasion, rebellion, etc) in order to cement your society's place in the area sufficiently well enough to begin the phase of permanent or modern society (industrial). You can't risk legions of men rebelling against you or small groups of citizens who in their ever growing freedom start to forget the horrors of survival and begin to shift their obsessions of desire from need to want, while still operating under ingrained the life or death biological mindset in every now shortsighted and selfish action. You need to stop it right then and there at all costs no matter who objects or, quite possibly, everybody will perish.

Now, once you don't have to worry about the lot of that your focus shifts to just making sure crazy, foolish, or large people don't bother or molest sane, intelligent, or smaller people so society can function as a free and friendly thing people want to and are proud to be part of and so will protect with their lives willingly and by choice, no conscription needed. This is what democracies excel at.

An excellent monarchy is better than a corrupt democracy and vice versa. Of course, common sense will tell you not only does the apple sometimes fall far from the tree, it can end up in the next city. Therefore, now that things have appeared to have settled some - for the moment - the cruel dictator telling you what to do depriving you of your wants is a larger concern than the benevolent monarch defending the kingdom against "the hordes" that would otherwise deprive you of your needs.

anyone tempted to give this thread an ounce of respect — Baden

You learn to separate the art from the artist. After all, were it not for the hectic world we live in and the idiosyncrasies it creates within ourselves we arguably wouldn't need art to begin with. A major unexamined tenet of popular non-deistic theist belief is in few words the idea that anything created or used for malice or ill-intent is or will ultimately be used for good (ie. workers of inequity produce naught, the lion will lay with the lamb, etc) and so encourage people to look for the good in everything and everyone, if not for strategic purposes and advancement of positive social change. Looking at things that way, that's not so bad now is it?

Not why should men be governed, but why must we be? It's a fair question, if not situation dependent. One asked by many an oppressed, decent man. Some of the obvious answers that may come to mind ie. burden sharing, united we stand divided we fall, teamwork makes the dream work, etc. may start to fall short to honest inquiry derived from pondering the numerous travesties committed by governments over the years as well as other, simpler forms of civilization that - while they were around - seemed to have done "just fine" with their own socially-derived customs and practices that purportedly kept most of the negative occurrences mentioned as rationale by supporters of "big government" at bay.

So, why must we be governed?

Why must you be governed? — NOS4A2

Because I was born into a society. That society that allowed the events of my safe birth to take place did not arise organically and is not a permanent, intrinsic feature of reality. Long story short, people think "biting the hand that feeds them" doesn't apply after it already did and allowed them to possess some semblance of independence. Doesn't work that way. In terms folks like that would best understand, every habitable inch on Earth is "taken" by people who vote "society" and they outnumber you. Sorry. lol

In other words, the purpose of suffering is to gain wisdom. It is a friend to the wise, and an enemy to fools

Agree? — Yohan

What is the purpose of a brick? A sword? To build and protect or to smash and destroy? What of dancing around like a loon and making funny faces? To each their own, surely...

Not everything has a purpose, that is to say we assign and judge value based on little more than experience and belief said experience has often fathered. Does a child who knows little of suffering experience the same joy and appreciation when receiving a desired item as a man who toils and claws his way to the same? What of a kitten raised indoors with little knowledge of predators and natural hazards placed outside alongside one who wasn't?

As proven by history that all communist systems have been enforced by dictators — Deus

I fail to see any system ever in place or that ever theoretically could be in place that if "taken on" wouldn't be met by something similar, one way or the other.

Any system that isn't set in place or would otherwise form naturally regardless of human action (gravity, society) is, much like the human body itself, in a constant state of negentropy (degradation).

Ready? As in prepared for? Against what? Keeping our sanity or defending ourselves?

Benevolent or malevolent, I see a problem.

It's not at all charitable and you've ignored what I said. It is not charitable to attribute to someone a view they did not express and furthermore a view that doesn't make sense.

I'll simply repeat what I said: to be in possession of all trees does not require being in possession of all potential trees. LIkewise, to be in possession of all knowledge dose not require being in possession of all potential knowledge. We're all potential murderers - should we all be locked up for actual murder?

And my definition of omniscience is clearly not trivial. How is it trivial? — Bartricks

If I may. I too was thinking along the lines he mentioned. From what I gather the conflicting premise is when someone says someone "knows everything" it, absent of sarcasm, typically means or implies anything that will or can happen which includes the product of 175 x 345 and whether or not it will or will not come to exist and if so what it's projected value is anyway. The idea of loose definitions and semantics is confusing, but from what I gather you assert that an omniscient omnipowerful being can define what is and what isn't knowledge per reason of creating new knowledge, essentially anything, at will, changing current meanings or realities, or destroying knowledge due to its intrinsic nature as omnipowerful ie. the number 2 doesn't exist unless it wants it to and if it does it can equal 3? Sorry if I'm muddying the waters or missing the point entirely. Men have debated this for millennia. It's confusing, lol.

even if I also have lots of false beliefs and fail to have lots of true ones, I will not fail to qualify as omniscient — Bartricks

Hm. An omniscient being that knows all there is to know yet "fails to have many true beliefs". Sounds a bit iffy to me. Sort of like not knowing "that thing you know how to do" happens to makes a whistling noise yet knowing "anything is possible" thus emulating a kind of omniscience where you both know and don't know how to whistle? :chin:

Truth is hard to pin down. Deceit isn't. Our senses feed our brain "reality" and as such are solely responsible for any and all understanding of or acquaintanceship with it. Sometimes they can be defective or altered (delusions, hallucinations, dreams). Who's to say all humans aren't, compared to what could be. Relative truth, that is to say a statement free of deception relative to the speaker that stands up to whatever scrutiny a man has learned in his short, short lifetime to be able to throw at it may be able to be ascertained by a certain formula, but absolute truth something that existed before the first number and would exist after the last intelligent thought I suspect is where things get a bit tricky.

It is said truth, reality, and the absolute has always existed. Before us, after us, with or without us, eternal and unchanged. Philosophy is merely consciousness attempting to speak the language of eternity. If such a language could be spoken - in the scope of a lengthy speech - the combined works of every intellect and scientist who ever lived would amount to little more than an unintelligible grunt.

Like any language, some are more proficient at it than others.

Imagine someone comes along and claims they have no respect for the value of human life — Paulm12

If they won't give you their kidney right there on the spot or object if you try to help yourself to it, they're bluffing.

(or the value of the lives of certain groups humans) — Paulm12

Like, race or social/economic class? Well, if you ever get shot in New York City you'll find out pretty quickly. A homeless bum runs to a nearby deli a millionaire built and calls 911 bringing an ambulance with an Asian paramedic driven by a black driver to take you to an Indian doctor just in the nick of time before you bleed out in some trash-filled alleyway. For example.

FWIW, this banning did kind of startle me. Street was a mod. I mean there's some positive "all men created equal" vibes there somewhere but, yeah. :lol:

Definitely gonna think more before I post. Which is good. I think.

I am sorry you felt intimidated. — Tobias

Ok see this is a good example. If you really felt that way you wouldn't have had to come up with a way to not-so-slyly call anyone who thinks the world, let alone intelligent debate, is better off without filth (not calling anyone filth just speaking about conduct and mindset) chickenshit.

Some people just don't like garbage, dude. That's not towards anyone, at all- other than behaviors. A simple "I disagree" will do, it doesn't have to be "Well knowing you I understand why you think that". If I'm already wrong you don't have to imply I have some deep, internal problem on top of it. Eh, some do. Don't you guys call that ad hominem or something? How does that advance an intelligent discussion? A political or business endeavor, certainly. But not a debate. At least not a real one with participants seeking knowledge and insight.

To his credit I think he is confusing Christians with "Christians". Most do. I know I did. And how. That's gonna have to be a story for another day though.

What are your thoughts on immortality and which type/ variation appeals or disturbs you the most? — Benj96

I'm afraid it would take me a lifetime to answer that. :D

Merely thinking out loud here, but.. how do you really know you haven't always been alive and just, forgot or something? Science is already talking about the possibility of consciousness surviving in a mechanical host so this is far from an explicitly spiritual concept.

All in all, I'm sure it hinges heavily on whether or not the person has a "good life". Perhaps beyond that, an unrealistically fortunate life. Where you can't wait to get up in the morning, whatever the reason be. Food, family, friends, games, work (lol), shoot even if you just enjoying getting drunk. The base argument would be something along the lines of "If you're having a good time, why would you want it to end?", I imagine.

I like the religious idea of immortality, where you acknowledge the body will die and while you are in your body, you are not your body. Sort of like when you enter your car. You don't "become" a Toyota lol. "Hold on honey, I'm a Toyota right now, I'll call you back." :lol:

Like I've posted before wishing for immortality for your body is a very foolish thing. You could be tortured for millennia by a currently non-existent totalitarian super government. Or trapped in a cave or something. I think there's a Twilight Zone episode like that actually.

One problem would be you would eventually have to outlaw having children without government approval. For obvious reasons. Another problem would be, yeah, why do anything? Not sure if you imply we wouldn't hunger or thirst period or if hungry or thirsty we'd still feel that way until we eat or drink? That's a big factor in how society would change.

In computer science it is known that it takes more computational power to simulate a computer system than the computer system itself has; typically, much more. — hypericin

Is this kind of like how computers used to be the size of a wall and now we wear them on our wrists?

Also,
You can't create a simulation on an average computer where the electricity works differently than it does in real life? Of course you can- it's a simulation!

For the record I do not believe reality is a simulation. More of a 'spiritual realms' guy myself. Now many people, for all intents and purposes, actually do live in man-made simulations, often of their own design- but that's another matter.

Define, "God".

Which premise do you dispute? — Bartricks

Hm. I like that. The idea that because a state of reality is negative it permanently defines any and all nature, prior or future, of said reality. My vehicle was in pristine condition when first acquired. Now. It could use a bit of work. Now instead of just saying the vehicle was always "in need of a bit of work", perhaps I could repair it to a once pristine condition using effort and yes, manpower. Which requires birth.

If every human being except for you disappeared right now and you were left with an endless Eden of wealth, resources, food, entertainment, anything a person could desire. Is this bad? Surely if you happened upon a woman and had a kid this would be introducing an "innocent life" to pleasure and a "care-free, safe" environment that you seem to hinge your entire argument upon. So which is it? Defeatism, nihilism, or you just believing the entire sum of reality that ever existed or could ever exist is based on your limited observation of it?

This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks

This is circumstantial. Sure, foolish to think that could or would ever change. However not much more so than to designate your understanding of reality (your limited sensory observation and experiences in a single lifetime) or challenging of it as theoretically impossible and an absolute constant. Maybe aliens show up kill all the bad people and turn this place into a heaven on Earth. Unlikely. But not impossible. This is where the "absoluteness" in the logic profile you seem to be suggesting breaks down.

Well this: Wouldn't it be absolutely amazing if we had a method of determining, before we dive headlong into solving/answering problems/questions, whether the problem/question is solvable/answerable in the first place? — Agent Smith

Non-math questions? Wouldn't that be impossible without the use of absolutes (even if you can "plug in" subjective values)?

Not a math guy (I'm sure you can tell), but after looking into it I find it remarkable how he came up with it and it remained unsolved (neither proven nor disproven) for so long. Quite cool. But say a represents the idea of happiness (subjective) and b represents likely consequences that may result from pursuing a, while c represents the current state of being (contentedness, resignation, boredom, despair, what have you). Is this like trying to determine if based on c what it would require to reach a, being b is worth it aka a reasonable pursuit?

For example, if your subjective absolute for c is "just about happy" and your subjective absolute for b is "losing all wealth and ending up homeless, it would not be reasonable to pursue b to achieve a seeing as the difference between a and c is very small, lesser than the risk of b. However if your subjective absolute for c is "miserable" and your subjective absolute for b is "having to downsize to a smaller apartment which I enjoy anyway" then it would be worth pursuing b in order to achieve a seeing as the difference between a and c in this example is greater than the risk of b. Is that something like what you mean or am I way off here?

Edit: Basically kind of a fancy way to say "is the potential risk of an endeavor worth the potential(?) reward of it?". I'm thinking you mean something else.

A = problem (let's say a flat tire)
B = resources available to solve it (an incomplete jack set, and a cell phone I can call a tow truck with)
C = solution (the tire being functional/changed and the vehicle being able to drive)

In this scenario, C can be reached using B (thanks to the cell phone to call the tow truck) thus alleviating A. Or no? Give an example, if you please.

a mental condition called "the Messiah complex" and start thinking that you gained some special kind of information from whatever it is that you just slammed in the bathroom — MAYAEL

Some of the greatest inventions were discovered by accident. Ever used a microwave? Messiah or not one of these "mentally ill" feeds you and keeps you alive through his works to this day. While I wouldn't call that any great or even notable accomplishment, that's pretty textbook as far as definitions go.

Potentially. Same can be said about any party of majority.

The idea of the Constitution as a "living document" that can be readily changed/updated/redacted through civil process basically throws out the idea of a "destruction" of the foundation of a construct short of violent action against an individual or group of individuals who hold opposing views (terrorism).

Sure that means, if enough of the wrong people gain power, slavery could become legal again. I would virtually guarantee this as impossible. Not for long, that is.

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?