• The Thomas Riker argument for body-soul dualism
    Let's remove the Star Trek weirdness and simplify your professedly-unique argument into the classic one, that is nothing new, and has thoroughly been discussed.

    If you could create an exact copy of one's brain, everything- memories, persona, mannerism, down to the smallest trait- and place that in a (I suppose for the sake of the experiment an exactly identical body, though otherwise would be valid yet naturally deviating) new person. Is that person the same person?

    Somewhat blase for this creed of crowd but until moved to the Lounge, I'll go with it. What do you think, OP? You seemed to answer your own question after all. Absent of any sort of supernatural or metaphysical nature, the two would naturally be identical. Otherwise, no. The man is the man and the copy is the copy. Lay off the whisky, will ya.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)


    See this is the problem with (not TPF, or discourse wherever it may occur, but rather) modern debate writ-large. We go off on personal tangents, warranted in each one's own mind in the moment of rebuttal.

    Let's backtrack a moment. If you could reduce or rather simplify the entire sentiment, as you first ascertained it to be, into a single sentence. For me, that single sentence was, to the best of my ability, based on your reply "Being crass or purposely offensive, for no other reason just to do so, then calling someone who believes society and humanity itself is better off without crass and (pay attention, KEY WORD here is: PURPOSELESS) insensitive demeanor and resulting sensitivity is a malady or "burden on society" while those who believe the opposite are assets to it" is in your words "unsure if [...] reasonable".

    That's all I disagree with. And I can point to documentation, legal, social, and otherwise, that support my sentiment. Can you?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    There is no 'largely agreed upon' standard for annoyance or loudnessAmadeusD

    Purposeless degradation or defilement of one's character. It's a literal legal concept, thousands of years old. Slander.

    If I come up to you and your family and say, "you're ugly and stupid" than punch you in the face, that would either offend or seem unneeded to the majority of people. That's a fact, jack. You know this. Brashness and "toxicity" go hand in hand. You could disagree with every fiber of your being of a person's life choices, but that doesn't mean calling them a disparaging name is any sort of reasonable means to go about correcting what you deem as a social ill.

    Do you like being insulted? What about harmed? Again, needlessly and without purpose. I would wager you do not. And if you do, that places you as an outlier and outcast of society. "Reasonability" is subjective, and if people wish to cast or call what the average, healthy individual wishes to avoid in the light of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" that is quite in line with logic and rationale.

    A child knows what pain is. So, hopefully, should an adult. So, though not quite an ad homonym, it is not "my" subjective assessment, but again, I do not understand why you do not accept this, an objective, thoroughly proven sentiment and therefore more or less reality.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I'm unsure this is reasonable in any sense.AmadeusD

    Well of course not, that's an out-of-context clipping of a larger sentiment, which was also an opinion, one that we both know is shared by the majority. I'm not sure what your point is.

    I'm simply saying being loud and annoying is loud and annoying. Not a political view or lack thereof. Saying that not being loud, annoying, and offensive to, since you seem to be playing dumb for some reason, a majority and largely agreed upon standard of social morals, is some sort of hindrance to society while being offensive and irritating people is some qualification of strength. It's not.

    It is not subjective, in the terms of quantitatively-measurable politics and society, that is to say it is the will of the people and even yourself. If you like abuse and unneeded suffering, burden, or difficulty, you are a "masochist", which is the cousin of a sadist, and an even closer cousin of a predator or undesirable member of society, which legally makes you a threat to others especially children. I know you're not. So please stop pretending logic is anything less than what it is for the sheer sake of chiming in.
  • More on the Meaning of Life
    Let’s see if we can come up with some general statements that most people would agree to.
    1. The universe et.al exists.
    2. Life is part of that universe.
    3. Man is part of that universe.
    4. Man is a sentient life form.
    5. As other forms of life, man has certain characteristics.
    6. One of man’s characteristics is that he is a reasoning life form.
    7. Another of man’s characteristics is that he is a social animal and interacting with other people is a necessary part of his existence.
    8.
    Can we get anything out of these statements? A necessary part of a fundamental set of statements is that they are complete and consistent. That is, can we generate all that we want from them and are none of them contradictory. These are probably not but let’s work with them for a while.
    George Fisher

    I for one love a set of well-defined and descriptive criterion one can agree or unpack numerically!

    1.) What is the universe? The thing we see when we go outside at night and look up, invoking the vastness of the stars and other planetary heavenly bodies, or that which is inside ourselves that lets us acknowledge the former?

    2.) What is life? Being able to breath, and have said breaths and various Co2/oxygen levels recorded by scientific instrument?

    3.) What is man? Why is a monkey not the true man, perhaps we performed some sort of sorcery on the original human and turned him into monkey while doing the same to change our own appearance?

    Furthermore, if "that universe" is simply that which is all encompassing by the senses it quickly loses it's literal physical definition and becomes all that simply is or can ever be, here or not..

    4.) Assuming you and I, and those traditionally regarded as human are "man", sentient of what? Perhaps we are sentient to that which really matters not and other beings, that we call ghosts are the true sentient beings, only visiting us ever so seldom and by accident.

    5.) If you are a man who posted this particular stipulation, redundancy and purposelessness is in fact one of your certain characteristics. Though that only would apply to you.

    6.) Reasonability is subjective. It is reasonable for a drunk mentally ill homeless man to jump in front of a train, or attempt to connect a banana to a wall socket. Perhaps you mean, relatively, long term provable, productive reasoning that creates efficiency in what is required? Required by whom?

    7.) I've left my baby alone for a few minutes without it randomly bursting into flames so no, social interaction is not "Required" for existence.

    8.) You can squeeze blood out of a penny, apparently. Though I haven't had any luck.

    --

    Ooh, what a delightful thread! Do continue, OP. :yum:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the USbaker

    I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals? Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?

    What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.

    (Not toward you or Trump just my general sentiments on the back and forth/two sides or in my view "abuse" of the term "political correctness")

    At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world. The mans no dummy that's for sure. Now at what cost? Only time will tell.
  • Are all living things conscious?
    Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze, granted over time, humans would struggle to? Simple because we can't communicate with a plant due to it having no mammalian brain organs, that we recognize, it's just a plant?

    What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious?

    What is consciousness, really. An excellent, if not tired prospect. "I think, therefore I am" or "I am, therefore I think". A worm tills the ground, knowing neither sleep nor gender, yet makes for an excellent buddy to procure a tasty trout from a nearby river. Though I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they?

    Unfortunately I have no yes or no answer for you, at present that is, rather some, what I believe to relevant if not interesting musings for your consideration, as shown above.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.


    Unless that person was black, that would probably win him votes. :vomit:

    I think that will be my new favourite emoticon.
    Benkei

    You agree with his factual understanding of the current political and social climate then.

    At no point did he say he would enjoy doing so, naturally he did not say he wouldn't, let alone the idea he would or wanted to have. He simply called a spade a spade and, at least in this particular scenario, happened to have told the truth.

    People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

    This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

    Do you not agree?
  • Right-sized Government
    The right sized government is relevant to the right sized parenthood.

    The chain that supports you from an endless, ever tormenting plummet is in fact only strongest as its weakest link. Which in this case is the most unruly child given equal rights as the most ardent scholar enjoys.

    One who values life, rather the civil order that ensures such life is reasonably expected to continue the following day, would do well to acknowledge such realities.
  • Bannings
    Well that's a surprise. I was expecting to find the name of someone else on this latest tombstone to be quite honest.

    Hm. Perhaps it's just a bit of projection on my part, but I feel him to be but a victim of the lustful, buxom charms of the temptress' bosom that is alcoholic beverage.

    Oh well. What's done is done I suppose.
  • Bannings
    Got a hunch he's a historian of Ottoman expansion and the greater Muslim conquest. People tend to look at war in the past with a blase "yeah we kicked ass" type of mindset when in reality, as you can see, much more vile, less boastful events occurred regularly, typically involving women and children. I'm no history buff, but something in me doubts the conquest of Constantinople was a family-friendly moving experience with a Casablanca-esque atmosphere as people bade their farewells, knapsacks full of fun little snacks and treats for the kids as they hit the dusty trail. There's some pretty nasty stuff written in religious books. Those were the laws of the day, mind you. I'd be curious to know his knowledge or lack thereof regarding the aforementioned so as to ascertain precisely what frame of mind he was in when such comments were made, rather the true context of the seemingly glaringly callous remark(s). Any deeper understanding at all would be better than blind "infallibility", typically attributed to God, shown for one's "team" in a war involving human casualties. Which, unfortunately, in a war, is exactly how things work. It is simply against human nature to care about your enemy's child when your own are viewed by said enemy as being better off dead. Hm. Oh well. :brow:

    That or Michael's "Why be moral" thread featuring specific examples of baby killing was a bit more convincing than he anticipated. :chin:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

    Guess this is how things are now here.

    Bye bye :)
    I like sushi

    Talk to me. I have a knack for these things. Not languages or even philosophy, but being able to connect to and with those who feel unfairly treated, unheard, or ignored.

    I will not insult you by reminding you of basic logic and premise structure. But so I can be sure we are on the same page, answer me the following, if you please. It would make my evening if you did.

    A.) What is your concern or argument? If there is no argument what is the desired path you wish to take this general discussion toward? What is the goal, other than enlightened if not farfetched debate reaching into the most obscure regions of the topic? (Perhaps, this is it!)

    B.) Why do you feel the opinions and judgement of your judgement merits disengagement? Is this perhaps what you are accustomed to, be it here or other places? On The Philosophy Forum, no one knows you, personally that is. One could say, you have a new life here. With no judgement or constraints of any past or current life. Why throw it away when you have people all over the world who wish to engage with you? (Perhaps... dare I say, one might be a bit selfish to deny one's thoughts and beliefs to an eager public)

    C.) So what if some languages are better than others. I am better than you at certain things, assuredly, at least one could hope, just as you no doubt are better at certain things than myself or any of your critics here! What, may I ask, drove up this thought in your mind that led you to create this thread. Are you perhaps studying language yourself? Do you know multiple languages? Have you attempted to and found great difficulty in doing so? Do you find yourself unable to have these sort of discussions with those in your life or perhaps find those disagreeable as well?

    If you please, mind you. Discussion forums are voluntary, you could easily sign off and never return. Which would sadden me, to an extent. Please be considerate of others who enjoy your contribution here and at least consider responding.

    Thanks,

    A friend :)
  • Are some languages better than others?
    You think I am ignorant? Okay then … shut it down I will not waste my time if you assume I have not studied any linguistics. I guess you just have a pet hate.

    Np bye :)
    I like sushi

    No, no, to have one's thread moved to the lounge be a badge of honor, if nothing else. Like in the days of old, the philosopher's table was not a chopping block (though it may have served similar purpose after dark) but a refining board where one can best find one's own faults not in shame or negative light, but in the promise of progress, like all great thinkers thoughts and desires surely went through.

    You quit when in fact you should strive forward, you doubt when in fact you should only double down on the conviction that fathered this thought or discussion you brought forth. Sure, it's not perfect, perhaps not even desired by the majority, but I ask you now. What scientific theory was not arduously even cruelly scrutinized before it became the law we all know and acknowledge? Very few. So take solace my weary friend. :)

    Besides... I think now the mystery as to the identity of the caper of your disappearing thread is now well known. :wink:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    First off, all these words and terms you use "Sicilian", "English", etc are nonsense in a true discussion of languages being "better". All lingual communication is forced air through specific muscular nuance. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    So it depends on what one defines as "better". Simpler? Sure, cavemen grunts were simpler and for someone who views simplicity as the paramount of communication are in fact much "better" than modern languages. More intricate requiring skill to master and perhaps even a deeper specificity of intent or purpose one wishes to convey? Sure, than complex language like we have today is "better". Until you explicit define what "better" is as in what intent or goal is to be accomplished, it's a matter of perspective.

    One would assume, the point of language, rather communication altogether being to convey and converse a specific sentiment, desire, or goal, a modern language is "better" than a series of grunts or clicking of one's tongue, yes. Up to the point it becomes too complex very few know how to express certain intricacies and subtleties, properly, up to the point it becomes a mere vanity display of 500 different ways to say the exact same thing seemingly for the point of simply being able to do so.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    Sure. They can all vie for the title of Who Acquired More Stuff for Their Heirs to Sue Over.Vera Mont

    No, that's fair. Though bear in mind people fight and kill over far less. If they raised their heirs properly and morally, or at least with an innate desire for peace as well as the knowledge of the value of avoiding avoidable discord, conflict can be minimized if not removed from the dynamic altogether.

    That's but one way of looking at it, is what I mean. Family strife is undesirable but it is unlikely to be disappearing altogether any time soon. How I look at it is, people vote with their resources, in this case, their money. So if many people buy my product or service, it clearly benefits them and thus society, which encourages innovation and progress, thus not only rewarding me for my efforts but encouraging the next innovator who may bring something even better to the proverbial social table. Now I'll be the first person to say, innovation can sometimes go too far for one's own good. That said, the old adage comes to mind, "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway". Along with "give them enough rope, they will hang themselves". But that's beyond the point so I digress.

    Within the admittedly poor limits of my knowledge, the majority is neither eager to contend nor able to attain anything like the full value of their efforts. Is that fair? I don't think so. But, as you say, opinions are cheap.Vera Mont

    I disagree somewhat. Though not entirely. What is the "full value" of one's efforts? Sure that modest tailor who hems clothes and fabrics could be making more money if he happened to have been educated in technological innovation and managed to have come up with the steam engine. I completely get the sentiment, at least my understanding of it, of "not wanting to contend" as in not wanting to pit myself against my fellow man where if I succeed he falters, especially in the context of superfluous resources or wealth and unneeded quality of living. I get that completely. That said, when one looks beyond the short term and gazes into the long term of society as a whole, one might find it is not quite the zero-sum game. I think so at least.

    Perhaps I misspoke regarding my remark of "opinions are cheap". They are dynamic, if not shifting, and often ill-formed, therefore placing prominent and pertinent value on something that is as ever-changing or resolute as the tides can be an unwise principle to adhere to in life. What I mean is, just because someone doesn't like you or something about you, doesn't automatically give the concept merit.

    Regardless, I enjoy reading and becoming aware of the opinions of those I respect, such as yourself. Even online. For I believe, if not know, they are definitively grounded in many of the same truths and values I call my own. Thanks for the reply. :)
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    As we here all attest.Vera Mont

    Surely just because one is limited to the certain cheapness that comes with the human existence does not mean bargains are not to be found? :)

    My claim is simply that without some unnecessary, perhaps even gross and offensive to the enlightened mind, idea, concept, or "dream" even, the majority would not be as eager as they should be knowing the full value of their efforts, despite being unable at the present. Is that not fair?
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    From where does a man strive toward then? — Outlander

    From birth to dotage, for self-esteem, the love of a happy family, the respect of his fellow citizens, the satisfaction of contribution to the common weal.
    Vera Mont

    Meh. Opinions and perspective, be they internal or external, are cheap, as ever changing as the winds. and often out of one's control anyhow. Lest you give turmoil and tempestuousness power, they matter not. Contribution is important. However, one can contribute a Trojan Horse unknowingly that provides great benefit, until it is revealed it in fact has not.

    What purpose does he have to excel, — Outlander

    self-fulfillment, the attainment of skill in his craft and the privilege of passing on hard-earned wisdom to the next generation.
    Vera Mont

    Wisdom... how fantastic. Utilization of knowledge. How many times has such utilization damned entire empires? It is not what is taught it is how to use it.

    to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? — Outlander

    Why defeat? Why not simply improve upon, day by day?
    Vera Mont

    If one is without fault, one is without care.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
    Wealth is an evil concept.
    Vera Mont

    From where does a man strive toward then? Rather, to? What purpose does he have to excel, to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? None. None whatsoever. And this constraint, is the father of all squalor and mediocrity.
  • Web development in 2023
    No, it means you're not allowed to change the name.Michael

    So you would agree it is more of a safety net for inexperienced coders versus an actual, functional progression in and of PHP itself. If I want to intentionally change the name, variable, or anything for that matter, of an open source framework I dang will do so from the source code seeing as it's free and open for me to do so if desired.
  • Web development in 2023
    That used to be how things were done, but then PHP introduced "protected" and "private" visibility precisely so that we didn't have to do this.Michael

    But, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that simply put/shift the onus onto the lower developer to use quirky/prefixed variables now?

    Example, in running your code, I just got a fatal runtime error "unable to access protected property Person::$name ".

    So it's not like it actually frees up the use of the literal verbose name of the variable itself. It just makes it so "Ok now I have to use use '$name2' or '$variable2' instead of what comes firsthand in mind." as far as secondhand development/utilization of a framework goes.
  • Web development in 2023
    That's the entire purpose of things like public, protected, private, readonly, final, typing, interfaces, abstract, etc; to ensure that developers do things properly.Michael

    Yeah, sure. Again just trying to better understand not to argue purely for the sake of doing so, but- actually no I get it, especially the latter comment. I'm not an "open source" guy so I'm sure you understand my "that's a solution in search of a problem" mindset. Myself, and many others have gone through painstaking measures in attempt to facilitate HTML based interfaces can perform any reasonable, common-use coding in and of itself, perhaps replacing the need to code altogether.

    Being able to see at a glance 'protected "name"' immediately tells them that they're not supposed to do '$class->name = 'foo'''.Michael

    I get that completely. But just to ponder. As a hypothetical. Couldn't all that be resolved by using a simple prefix to the variable? Example (and I do this in mine, sometimes, as do others) ... let's use your WTFramework.

    Any common variable a person would use $name, $id, $session, $user, etc.... whatever it is...

    Instead use a prefix so it would be

    $_name or $wtf_name

    literally

    $class->_reservedVariable;
    $class->wtf_variable;
    

    So no person would ever overwrite a variable in virtually 100% of use cases whatsoever.

    I do get the point you want people in an open source framework to access and adjust variables and in a modern PHP dev environment the inline warnings are very useful.

    Anyway, nice meeting a fellow coder on here.

    Seriously I think TPF or even the two of us should have an old fashioned "code off".

    Say a simple guestbook. A page of static content anonymous users can post comments on, sans db, stored as text files. I think that would be interesting. If you have the time.
  • Web development in 2023
    Often times you don't want that which is why such properties are usually protected or private.Michael

    Doesn't one generally not "publicly" reassign variables from a helper/framework class?

    Say I'm incorporating your framework into whatever PHP project I'm working on. I'd have $myclass and $yourclass, respectively. What reasons would someone who is clearly not "public", as in a full on admin level code editor, edit a property of another class? It can't be for some "security exploit" since they have the full code and could just edit it from the parent class.

    If they choose to break the code, even unintentionally, perhaps they shouldn't even be coding in the first place.

    What I mean is for example, I use Twilio, a well-known telecommunications framework.

    So I could have a thousand different variables going on that range from different classes and functions ($appOne, $appTwo, $functionOne, etc) and there will still be only one "helper" or "external" class. Say in this case $twilio.

    So there's no reason to randomly change an independent variable that corresponds to a new class or object just to do so.

    Say there is an important object I want to re-use I could just use one line of code to "store" it, statically or dynamically with a "&="

    $importantInfo = $twilio->importantInfo;
    

    There would be no reason for me to manually code/reassign at the top level (meaning I literally can access anything) the following

    $twilio->importantInfo = 'something that breaks the script';
    

    That would be asinine and utterly intentional. If I can access the parent code I can easily change anything about it anyhow.

    Am I making sense? I swear I know what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to be difficult or whatever.
  • Web development in 2023
    Michael
    class Person
    {
      protected $name;
      public function __construct($name)
      {
        $this-name = $name;
      }
      public function getName()
      {
        return $this->name;
      }
    }
    
    $person = new Person('Michael');
    
    echo $person->getName()
    
    ;

    No different than

    class Person
    {
        function __construct( $name ) { $this->name = $name; }
    }
    
    $person = new Person( 'Michael' );
    
    echo $person->name;
    

    Is it? Not on my end at least.
  • Web development in 2023


    I had to Google the "readonly" stipulation. What realistic (or even atypical) case scenarios can you provide that warrants its explicit use?

    Never did "cast" variables ie. string, int, boolean, etc. Didn't see the need to do so if everything it interacts with can handle errors/unexpected inputs, be they common or rare, properly.

    Edit: with the exception of certain required internal functions, however in this manner:
    function FormHandler( $prefill = array() ) { /* */ }
    

    I'd much rather a default function-level based "error handling" (ie. not integer detected therefore, perform this) than a top level PHP error that breaks whatever the user is doing (and often the site or at least the specific action page in the process).
  • Web development in 2023


    Exactly what I was worrying about, how greatly PHP has changed, or "advanced" allegedly.

    I'm a solid "OOP'er" as that is, in my eyes, the peak "pinnacle" point of PHP advancement. The last and only paradigm shift as far as I judge.

    $framework = new MyFramework; $framework->function( $some, $variables, $here );
    

    Anything beyond that has always been a hard pass for me. Simply for reasons of not being needed.

    The furthest I go into modern PHP (post 2007) is the use of the double scope (::) operator and even that is for convenience/compatibility purposes.

    As example, this is the only use case of the newly introduced scope operator in my framework:
    function __construct() { $this->appName = strtolower( parent::class ); $this->sectionName = strtolower( static::class ); }
    

    And that's of course out of necessity. I view myself as fairly adept in PHP, at least in the period of time I was most active in it. Hopefully things haven't changed too much...
  • Convince Me of Moral Realism
    Nihilism doesn’t choose chaos and hardship, it merely accepts that there is no intrinsic meaning available to us.Tom Storm

    Doesn't the universe seem to though? Space and the world itself is a chaotic, violent place. If there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose available to us- actually. Wait a minute. Is this a faux/proxy theist/atheist argument without either of us realizing it? "Intrinsic meaning" seems to imply, in your usage of it, something that could theoretically only come from intelligent design, no? Meaning, if you do not believe in intelligent design, you automatically are either a nihilist or moral anti-realist? Well that's naturally a pretty easy cookie-cutter argument to make of course.

    But if we're looking beyond that- the idea that some form of morals ("right or wrong" as advanced intelligent beings or "progress and regress" as purely cellular beings in a larger scale of actual advancement or purpose or "value" not just simple one-time human observation of what seems to "work" in one man's lifetime levied against purported other lifetimes) might exist and proliferate the Universe and existence itself and we only begin to try to understand it, perhaps pay it lip service in the form of laws, codes, so-called "ethics", and best practices, what concrete proof could any man have against such a notion?

    There’s a significant difference between 'there is no inherent meaning' and ‘nothing matters’.Tom Storm

    Well sure, similar to how there's a significant difference between the state of a vehicle that has just drove off a canyon and the state of the same vehicle once it reaches the bottom of said chasm. I see little difference in the two states. Perhaps this is what differs our respective worldview(s).

    In layman's terms: "doesn't one inevitably end up as the other?" :)
  • Convince Me of Moral Realism
    The problem I have with people who say nothing matters (nihilists, moral anti-realists, literal institutionalized persons, etc) is that the majority of them are functional "hypocrites" (I use the word 'hypocrite' in place of a vulgar term for the severely mentally deficient).

    Nothing matters? That's great. Go live in a pile of sand away from society and the goods and services it produced by people who live and die every day for the opposite belief. Who also, as a matter of fact, maintain for you.

    Got a phone or internet connection? Someone who believed in moral realism made that.

    A car or drive on public roads? Someone who believed in moral realism made that.

    Ever used a band-aid? Been to public school? Read a book? Watch a YouTube video? Eat anything beyond a poorly cooked hunk of raw animal flesh? Yup. Provided by a moral realist.

    Every breath you take using our inventions is already a disqualification of your attempt at an argument. As far as rational minds should be concerned, it's a non-starter until you live as you believe.

    Now, if right now you abandoned every modern invention and went to go live in the woods (not here btw- somewhere undeveloped) and live your truth, then, that's a starting position for an argument. Perhaps someone will find your bones next to a tree with a carving of your attempted non-philosophy and be in a compassionate enough state to take it as serious content. Not here.

    Reveal
    Disclaimer: I wrote this post as an unposted draft some odd hours ago. It seemed personally aggressive at the time so it went unsubmitted. After thorough examination I conclude I am in fact attacking the art not the artist.
  • Reason for believing in the existence of the world


    Once, when I was lucid dreaming, meaning aware I was asleep, I took a picture with my smartphone to see if when I awoke it would be on my phone's gallery.

    It wasn't.

    But I definitely took a picture and left a message. It remains in my mind, and now in yours. But neither of us can access it physically, here and awake, that is. So what does that mean?
  • What are your favorite thought experiments?
    The only true thought experiments are those performed outside of a laboratory setting where the participants are unaware they're participating in one, and as such are illegal in most cases. Well that's not true, unethical is the word. Which is the foundation of how most today operate. Dating, for example.

    "Would you rather [undesirable choice A. vs. undesirable choice B.]..." seems to be the casual go-to.

    Reveal


    But as far as contemporary philosophy goes, the trolley problem comes to mind. It's fairly basic yet touches on the main issues of life and society. Life, death, responsibility, action and inaction, blame, guilt, cause and effect, etc..
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology


    Well that's somewhat pleasing and comforting to hear. However, like I said. The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza. Took 50 years to make that progress. And since then, further progress seems to come so quickly it has become superfluous. So, you see the concern and validity of my argument I'm sure.
  • Mind-blowing mind-reading technology
    Neat. It can be used to make enemies of the state give up information/names/locations of stolen goods, persons, or illicit activities. Kidnappers and ransom takers, etc.

    Unfortunately. What some people forget. Is just how the first computer was a massive, costly piece of machinery that took up the entire wall of a decent sized room. We now have them we can wear on our wrists for $50.

    Secret drones the size of a housefly exist. Only a matter of time before they hit the market and become affordable any college kid can get hold of.

    So what happens, if the current pattern continues? Dare you ask? You could potentially offer to give someone a ride and have the roof or seat of your car equipped with non-contact "brain sensors" of this type and bring up in conversation, "Man someone figured out my bank pin. I used all 4's. I was so dumb. Hey. Whatever your bank pin is... make sure it's good." Upon triggering someone manually by such a phrase it will likely come up in their head, unless you're, what is basically crazy, and start thinking random numbers as quickly and feverishly as possible.

    Scary direction indeed. What does this mean for the future of humanity? One could only imagine.
  • About Weltschmerz: "I know too much for my own good"
    It's like watching a violent friend who struggles with alcoholism or drug use or violence.

    Knowing they're going to die (or at least get in trouble and further the negative actions and emotions) but just doesn't listen. No matter what you say or try. They make progress when you're around- sometimes. But inevitably fall right back into their old ways, sometimes getting you into trouble or worse as well.

    You tend to discount the person's welfare, if not only temporarily so as to avoid a greater selfishness of not focusing on those who can and will listen and society as a whole. However, you know if they're going to get in trouble or something similar, they're likely going to be impacting other people's lives or society as a whole before they go down. You don't want to just flat out say "Hey man, shape up, you're making us look bad" because more often than not that just pushes them further down into the cycle of negative thoughts followed by foolish actions they can't seem to avoid. Now multiply that by 8 billion people.

    It really gets frustrating. You can't just say "oh well" and write off another human being as a "loss" as if they were a carton of eggs that fell off the back of a truck. On the other hand, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Can't save everyone. Many a fool has tried.

    It comes down to knowing throughout the development process, people will make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are very severe and overreaching into the lives of those who have nothing to do with the person. Say some kid gets bullied in school or a mentally-unstable adult is habitually harassed at his place of work then decides to shoot up the place and kill 50 people. And you knew the guy. Well, at least talked to him a few times. All you had to do... was be his friend, calm him down, let him know there's good people everywhere and we're all in this together, even those who don't seem to think so. But instead you were in a hurry and got upset because he took an extra two minutes on your order. Point being it really boggles the mind how such small little gestures or even inaction can literally change the world and lives of countless people. So what do you do? How do you even go about solving such a ill-defined yet clear problem? You can't "make people be nice" to one another any more than you can force people to live a life without mistakes they (when lucky) live to regret. What does one do.
  • Does Religion Perpetuate and Promote a Regressive Worldview?
    Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview?Art48

    Religion being a "way (or structure) of life perpetuated" the answer would be: depends on the religion.

    If, like most people by "religion" you mean a simple compare and contrast of those who believe in creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution/haphazard intelligence then that's a bit different. But not by very much.

    I'd delve into this topic in much greater detail but seeing as I'm short on time at the moment I want to pose a question or set of questions to you and anyone who happens to be reading. If religion (believing in God or a set of societal rules, codes, or covenants that absolutely must be followed lest one or one's society become destroyed) limits one's desire for scientific advancement, "advancement" that leads to the point our five human senses are just short of literally glued to inhuman devices and social communication becomes an unwanted chore (sound familiar?) ... by what measure do we judge if something is "regressive" or "progressive". I'll substitute these words with negative and positive, respectfully. You could take a snapshot of a situation, say a sports game and conclude, Team A is losing. This may be true, however in real life unlike sports games, there is no timer. As much as some people like to insist. Perhaps if you took a snapshot at a later time Team B would be losing, and never recover from this position (ie. Team A won despite appearing the opposite due to the limitations of human observation).

    In short, I don't happen to find anything particularly "progressive" or "positive" about a society that results in true Nuclear holocaust where the entire planet becomes incapable of sustaining life, even if we do get to watch it all on our little iPhones or smartwatches before we succumb to radiation sickness. Do you? I'd much prefer the steady, predictable, and nuanced old world society where, sure things were simple - if not outright grueling at times - but at least humanity lived on whilst retaining the social communication skills that allowed society to progress in the first place. Wouldn't you? Seems like a reasonable opinion to hold but to each their own..

    Humanity can become plenty neurotic contemplating the pains, struggles, and chasms of existence itself, no matter who or what you deem responsible or no matter how long you believe it lasts or continues.
  • What is a successful state?
    One where more people are trying to enter than exit.
  • Why is alcohol so deeply rooted in our society?
    If a person requires to consume particular substances to display or practice certain mental, emotional, and behavioral skills or traits, this means that they are unable to practice those skills or traits *deliberately*. This is a weakness, a disadvantage.baker

    Spot on. I don't believe anyone could disagree.

    However one should differentiate "requires" from "prefers". I'd say I "require coffee" first thing in the morning to get moving. I strongly prefer it, and if I happened to run out I would likely go through considerable measures to obtain a cup. But if all coffee ceased to exist from the world, I would simply have to go through my morning routines regardless.

    Per my example, sure, if you cannot not be pissed off without becoming intoxicated that indeed would be a problem. On the other hand I stand by the fact for most responsible drinkers, alcohol makes one "more jovial" as in, relative to one's preexisting state of joviality. To further agree with you, yes if one is unable to be jovial without becoming intoxicated that is in fact a negative trait one possesses.

    Take something very tedious and boring no one enjoys. I don't know, sorting a 5-gallon bucket's worth of buttons that have become unsorted. For example. If, in this fictional example, you had to do it anyway and it's something you simply don't enjoy, you can't force yourself to enjoy it, that is to say you can't artificially elevate your "happiness" on cue or command absent of external stimuli. Can you? Sure you could look forward to the reward and bear that in mind or focus on it whilst doing so (say they're rare and worth a considerable amount once sorted) or be thankful of how good or satisfactory one's life is and what one has. Sure with discipline one simply does the job regardless. If one would not do the job because of a mental wall or some sort of personal refusal without being intoxicated (alcoholism) then yes that is a separate yet very common set of scenarios.

    In short, sure with discipline or "skills or traits" you can be friendly and pleasant even when you're going through hell so to speak. But this is a facade.

    I think we can delve into two different common "types" of people's personalities, which many are a mix of the two or others but for simplification we will distinguish two: "introverts" and "extroverts". I wouldn't say it's fair to condemn one over the other as being a "weakness" or "disadvantage". Some people just don't like crowds. Some people can't be by themselves for more than a few days without losing their mind or at least becoming irritated or depressed. It's different mental configurations be they biological, habitual, or a combination of both. So, while I agree with most everything you've said I think the assertion that someone who "requires to consume particular substances" to say have fun and feel at home in a crowded or unfamiliar environment is an automatic, cut-and-dried "weakness" and "disadvantage" needs some revisiting.
  • Antisemitism. What is the origin?
    Fear. Ignorance. Not to say people are saints of course and no man of a particular self-identification is more or less prone to acts of social ire than one without. A long time ago people had too much free time, that is less to occupy one's mind than we do today. Very little was known about the nature of the world (arguably little has changed) and the prevailing religion of the day was superstition. Bad things happened quite often and a fledgling humanity sought answers for the troubles that ailed them. The human mind needs a devil, someone or something else to blame when troubles arise. Who do you blame? Your mate at the pub who you bump shoulders with every other day, go to one another's house, and whose kids play together? Or that person or small, mysterious group of people who keep to themselves all day nobody seems to really know anything about. Makes sense really.

    "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" is a good example of this psychological phenomenon.
  • Web development in 2023


    No I get it. The constants of the site are loaded (header/footer ie. core HTML structure, images, universal JS/CSS, etc) and any content can be a simple albeit long string along with functions needed only for the specific page vs. requesting the aforementioned over again. Although I was under the impression all browsers "cache" the aforementioned and minus the 1-1 handshake that the server is still reachable, which would have to be done anyway to request "about.js" or whatever new content medium in the first place, doesn't seem to differentiate the two methodologies by very much? Perhaps I misunderstand. Fair enough. However..

    Reveal
    var me = document.getElementById('Outlander');
    
    me.onclick = function()
    {
      alert( 'But what about someone who does not have Javascript functionality either inherently or disabled for security reasons?' );
    
      // just for fun
      for ( var i = 0; i < 2; i++ )
      {
        i--; alert( 'Ye cannot escape! Mwahaha!' );
        // or if you really want to get twisted
        // window.open( 'http://www.adultwebsite.com', _blank );
      }
    
    }
    
  • Web development in 2023
    SPAs don't require Ajax.Michael

    If it's an obituary for a cat or memoirs of the owner of said cat, sure. At that point it might as well be a single page website with a floating sidebar of whatever section you wish to scroll to or at least a fixed menu of the sort. I suppose it does save browser memory- the content not being rendered by the browser and stored in the JavaScript as text, especially images or videos not rendered and when changed they are thus freeing up the memory from any images or video previous rendered when you change to the new "page".

    But for anything useful like a public forum or guestbook, or say billing or payment application where an action could have been made from another avenue ie. by phone and needs to be updated, it really ought to communicate with the server, wouldn't you say? Am I wrong? if so, how and why. with examples.

    I get the concept (I think?). For a small or medium sized business. You load every single item (thousands), image link, and description (often lengthy) when someone visits your homepage? That doesn't seem efficient to me. I suppose it simply loads the blank "default item" page and clicking the item individually loads its information? That would still require every single item in inventory's ID, picture, title, and usually price to be loaded from the first homepage visit. That seems a bit much.

    Sure for many places, a restaurant or small business it seems fine that just links to an image of a menu or something. Not sure what greater benefit an SPA would offer as opposed to HTML-based page browsing from the user's end? (assuming they have a good connection)
  • Web development in 2023
    Gmail settings will not load a new page.Jamal

    Right but if you had a good internet connection in the first place the literal only advantage/difference between not changing a page to going back to the main email listing in a click of an X button is vanity and perhaps a non detectable fraction of second. It's vanity. No utility. Sure if your internet fails and it lets you click an "X" to return back to an email listing if you happened to have the setting page for a prolonged period of time for some reason without a connection (which I doubt it does) perhaps an email title and the few words included in the preview might be useful. But other than that I fail to see any utility or useful difference between the two (direct page loading vs. single page AJAX loading. Also remember you're describing AJAX deep down at the end of the day, SPA is one version of a larger picture. AJAX vs. HTML page loading, that's what I'm referring to.)
  • Web development in 2023


    Well sure, but what is an email web client but a collection of notes, albeit most sent by others and to and fro. If you do anything but opening a note or adding to it (responding to an e-mail) say, changing account settings it does a full redirect to a different URL.

    See, right now, my internet is throttled (or something) and I can't even access the Help (?) or Settings (gear icon) button no matter how many times I click the damn thing. You can't even right click it and get the actual URL to open in a new tab because it's too busy loading 50 different things I DON'T EVEN NEED AT THE MOMENT OF ACCESS. LOL. Come on. See my perspective.

    Oh look now it just opened. And I STILL CAN'T CLICK A LINK UNDER THE SUB MENU. Nor can I right click it!!

    I'm grateful you don't experience what I do. But for the many who do. It's a nightmare. And it's still happening. lol

    oh look now i'm offline. see. it's frustrating. and this is the largest company in the world. very annoying. like i were an anti-humanist trying to piss technology users/computer people off. i could not think of a better way. just saying.