By the way, wouldn’t you agree that the education of a perverse nature must be punitive in character — Todd Martin

I would disagree on the simply notion that to treat the perverse with perverse methodology only teaches them what they already know. If we punish those who only know punishment as a way of being are we really offering any alternative? How do you teach a child to listen? You listen to them. Then apply your demonstration of the concept in reverse no?

very true. But what if we consider nurture is a product of previous nature and nature evolves... then is it not simply a question of just nature but one that is in constant flux

for me philosophy is an endless endeavour because it is an attempt of a system to understand a system that it is inherently born of. In this way i mean that even if a philosophical ultimatum is arrived at at any point in history that is considered to render all further contemplation as null and void is is only an ultimatum in that present circumstance. And because time and the human condition relative to a time is ever changing ... so too must the ultimatum as time progresses. For example if we take ethics as an example ... the capacity for moral is always changing as science and medicine progresses... it would be pointless to ask the questions “ is it morally correct to live forever?” Or “should artificial intelligence be given the same conscious rights as organic life?” 100 or more years ago when in The future these may be very real and practical concerns to humans. If our abilities as a society and technologically capable being are always advancing so to does the domain of contemplation of such matters. In history we encounter such ideas as is it right to give slaves freedom? Which is now considered much more of an arbitrary question as we generally accept that slavery is for the majority a thing of the past.

If thought changes due to the course of human civilisation and culture then I would imagine the questions we must address both now and in the future also change

People are in general naturally bad. — turkeyMan

Do you really believe so? Would it not make sense that people are more likely neither good nor bad when uneducated as to the meaning of both in a social sense... and that it is their life decisions + their circumstances/ the life they were born into that decides whether they are good or bad.

For example if people are naturally bad that would suggest that they are genetically predisposed to being bad/ sinful/ negative in quality: selfish, greedy, cold, inconsiderate, egotistical... but what good does that do in the modern human world? We may be animals but are we really that “animalistic”?

this is very A astute Insight. We could consider the infant as a baseline (undifferentiated) and so really it’s the circumstances both a). Faced by and b) ultimately overcome or embraced that defines the individual. We couldn’t for example fairly assess a criminal who was born into a “fight for survival” - given no support and opportunities and likely discriminated against for circumstances they could not have changed themselves against those who were born privileged with a silver spoon in their mouth and a highly invested education.

So one would imagine it is the same for those who for one reason or another developed narcoses of some for from a hostile environment but chose to be better than their conditions vs someone who never had to go through an ordeal that may affect their personality negatively

that’s a very interesting analogy I didn’t think of it this way. Well I for one would be equally pleased by the greedy man who turns against his ways as someone who never had an interest in materialism in the first place. I suppose considering the means to an outcome is relatively fruitless if the outcome is the same

Well if we leave strict definitions aside for a moment and go on the general qualities and sentiment of a “nation” then I would be inclined to believe that yes the EU is in some form a country.

Let’s take a look at what goes to make a country. In a loose sense it is a geographical region that is unanimous in its intent to have cooperation between its peoples both economically and socially.
It abides by a common set of laws and rights/liberties or freedoms that it offers all of its people equally.

When we think of the EU we think; freedom of movement, freedom of labour, a common tax/customs area for goods and services, a more or less common currency and language of commerce, A standardised qualifications comparison system, and a governing body that offers provisions based on need so that the whole can be “brought up to speed” - that is to say established on a level playing field with one another in a developmental sense - the weakest countries often considered second world or even third world have in a matter of decades been accelerated into first world conditions/ quality of life.

People in the EU generally consider themselves as a “European citizen.” The EU is a place of common interests and community that has sought to expand its territory and “unite” people of different areas under one geographical/ social/ legal/ financial and political entity.

It has many parallels with a country. Allow me to make note that the term “country” is relatively arbitrary in definition; by regard of religion (most countries are multi-denominational already), Socioeconomic (many countries have distinct socioeconomic regions (think north Italy vs the Mezzogiorno), linguistically (many countries have more than one officially recognised language (Ireland has English and Irish, Spain - Galician, Catalan, basque and castellano), India has 20+, as well as dialects within a language - Italy for example. Currency - several nations have multiple currencies: Cyprus, jersey islands, Bhutan and Cuba are typical examples. And politics - the USA is highly partisan as well as Britain and many others with distinct political sub populations within one nation.

So it’s clear what goes to defining a country is, at best, difficult and vague. I would look at it from a historical progression. Tribes were the first communities. Every country has had a diverse array of tribes, clans or families which led their territory, then came kingdoms of which Italy had dozens upon dozens - each very unique, these Types of regions evolved into unified countries which then unified into larger entities such as the EU. The term tribe, kingdom, nation or union are somewhat synonymous in that they are symbolic of human cooperation and willingness to identify as a group with a mutually agreed border. An ever expanding “us” and ever diminishing “them”.

If we were to encounter life on other planets the scale would once again inflate and we would likely identify as a global nation/country in an intergalactic set of “countries” or territories.

What is new to some may be old to others. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely it runs along the lines of “one mans rubbish is another’s treasure.” With respect to “popular art” I would imagine it is that which has the capacity to engage a large audience - that perhaps it has a message or emotion that is either new to many or just simply held in great esteem/importance to the majority. Art that deals with current affairs or archetypes of human nature would fit this category. It is observed that art that deals with struggle and hardship, depression, love or the mysteries of life has that kind of impact that resonates with a lot of people while of course there are also niche arts that won’t relate to the majority but are profoundly interesting to a few. But as you pointed out, to say one is better than the other is a fallacious claim just as to assume ones dreams/ambitions are less correct or valid as another’s is also merely a matter of opinion.

I think however that Whilst most of us wouldn’t be comfortable critiquing art, critics do have a purpose or knowledge in discerning what is perhaps powerful or popular art verse art that is less so. But they would make judgements not only on the relevancy or perceived “worthiness” of the piece but many important factors such as; Technique and precision - how well did the artist execute the message they wish to portray, style - is it something that is refreshing and unique or something that has been repeated 1000 times already, how was the piece composed - how well does the artist demonstrate spatial awareness and balance in the piece etc. The list is extensive and always open to contention.

In essence the true irony is that critiquing or “appreciating” art is just as much an art-form as the artwork itself and this is why many a time several famous or well recognised art critics can be at total odds with each other as to the beauty of a piece they have all independently analysed. One could say it’s the best thing they’ve ever seen and another could say it belongs in the bin.

It is therefore important for artists (especially those who create works of a deeply personal nature - the artists who quite literally put their soul/ being into a piece) that a criticism is never universal. And that a disliking of the piece is not a reflection of the validity or worth of their personhood and they should not take it to heart too much.

The issue really is that as I pointed out earlier most of us have very little idea of what is “good” so we tend to agree with the experts opinions despite maybe liking the piece before the critic “ripped it to shreds” and this can feel awful for an artist when the group turns on their piece without really knowing what decision or who’s decisions lead them to that conclusion.

A worthwhile final note is that dozen of artists have faced severe and often life destroying levels of exclusion/ denial of their talents based on the status quo at the time only to emerge as distinguished and highly regarded artists posthumously in the future. If only they could see what became of their work.

Art is [for me] the invocation of the unexpected. Good art is that which enshrines an original perspective. You can take the Mona Lisa and paint it in an identical way to how it was painted in the first place... will it stimulate the mind? Likely not. We will simply recognise it as being identical to its predecessor. But what if you took the Mona Lisa and this time you painted it in a distorted Or figurative way, or a colourful and vibrant expressive way, or you explored the geometry of the painting, or you made it mythological, or used only cubes to paint it or you painted it as a robot or made of fruit. The same recognition processes go into appreciating that it is the Mona Lisa but the newness is in “what kind of version of it he Mona Lisa Has been painted.

Art chews up the previous and rebuilds it into the future Presentation. It always has an input from the past but the result is always a transformation for the purpose of new expressions. This is artistic evolution.

Whether art offends/ is dangerous or not depends on to what degree it opposes the status quo/ the expected. There are many cases in history of art being destroyed for its obscenity and unacceptability but that is a reflection more of the art appreciator/ viewer than the artist and of what is culturally “appropriate” of the time. The “primavera” A mythological And somewhat pagan depiction Of the goddess of spring that was painted during the height of the Roman Catholic Church had to be hidden and protected for many years For this reason.

Art should provoke. Because if it cannot... it is dead. The essence of art is the new and therefore maybe the uncomfortable/ unpalatable/ unsightly.

Change dictates that novelty must always exist. Consider yourself as a prime example. The insights and awareness of each individual is unique because there is never nor will there ever be, spatially And temporally, another you. You are a new phenomenon to the universe -that will only occur once.
However our similarities ... the human condition... is something we all share; our common emotions, desires, dreams, ambitions, anxieties fears and insecurities.. these things have been in the past and will likely be again in the future due to that which makes a human “human”.

So as for original thought, despite our likeness you provide the world with original thought every day. That is your persona. It cannot be substituted/ replaced.

I agree that you cannot speak of that which you do not already know but that is not to say that these things that are already known cannot be mixed and amalgamated into something unique. If we couldn’t think Independently then self expression, art, discovery and innovation could not be possible.

Consider hydrogen and oxygen. They are separate molecules with unique properties but when combined ... water is formed... which has a combined property unlike that of it’s components. The same is true of human experience. We take from the knowledge of others but how we apply this information is always different. Even if only in a slightly nuanced novel form.

New stories will always be shared, new ideas regarding how to manipulate and utilise the reality presented to us will always be undertaken.but they will likely have a similar vein because we are the same species; we require the same needs as one another.

By assuming a logic that everything is already thought of then the arrow of time would Fail as direction comes from having point A a starting position and point B the destination. If the beginning and destination are ultimately the same thing then progress does not happen.

I would say that the drop is essential to the fluid. A molecule of water does not make water. Multiple individual units interacting is the Fluid. How you interact with the world or society surrounding you does make a difference albeit a small one. But is a small change better than no change at all? I would say yes.

I often feel the same lack of potency in the world. Ineffectual. But just think of it this way “all chain reactions have a first link in the chain.” Potential has to begin somewhere. It’s up to you to be a sheep or a Shepard. A leader or the lead.

On the point of whether to bring more humanity into the mix ... I am opposed to more. Humanity is spreading/populating at a rate hitherto unseen. But my reasoning is not based on whether one should introduce more life but that simply put, ones influence is directly proportional to the population at large. The smaller the population the more significant the actions of one individual.

When humanity was only 1 million humans 1 human has quite the charge/ potential to make changes. In a population of 8 billion and rising... not so much. But always will your decisions have a rippling out effect on others. The best thing one can do for the collective is decide how they wish to live. And then live by that mantra. Change comes from within not externally

Allow me to rephrase it “is the purchase of factory farmed human (An Animal) products ethical?”

It’s well know that human commodities exist in economics. We would have to first establish the “likeness” or level of “kinship” Between humans and animals. Do we both deserve the same rights? Freedom? - From exploitation, from Harm, from objectification. One must ask themselves if they feel all life forms are deserving of certain levels of respect. Considering we barely respect each other I don’t expect that we will soon respect our perhaps lesser informed/ knowledgeable counterparts - the animal kingdom in the same light as each other.
On one side we have the “one must eat” ie. survive in a competitive “eat or be eaten” sense. But on the other hand we have the question “can we do better than that?” Is the human capacity to empathise or relate to others important and should we apply it to what we consume.

We often grapple with a guilt- superiority dynamic. “We can” (we are potently capable of many things) but “should we” (ethics and moral implications of living). In my experience much like a gardener tends to their herbs and botanics or a Shepard to their sheep or livestock... their is an element of reciprocity that is essential to the health of both parties. Eating mistreated food is to the detriment of the consumer. But to not eat is to fail to thrive. It’s a balance. Perhaps one we are losing to material desire.

I would ask oneself “what can I eat and feel good about eating it while preserving my health?” And if animal products currently don’t meet that standard then there is your answer

Comparison — Caldwell

I often find choosing the right words as cumbersome forgive my inaccuracies

No new insights to me, as the concept of money has always been a subject of studies of societies. — Caldwell

Sorry perhaps comparison isn’t the right word. “Association”. The tie of money to a group. Value as a concept exchange between multiple individuals

No new insights to me, as the concept of money has always been a subject of studies of societies. Our view of money is a reflection of our values as people. Our use of money is a reflection of our requirements for happiness. — Caldwell

I find it curious that you made this comparison. As when we study biology or specifically bioenergetics we come to the understanding that ATP is the “energy currency” of the cell. Why is it that even in biology money or “the symbolic potential to release energy/ perform actions” is an inescapable truth of the development and persistence of ordered intelligent systems. Cells have societies too do they not? ;)

hich Money Meme do you think is becoming "more powerful and more self perpetuating than the individual human"? Are we merely passive hosts for the greedy artificial Money Matrix? Will humanity survive the monetization of the mind? Are we becoming mere organic "bots" for transporting unnatural selfish money memes? :joke: — Gnomon

Haha interesting. Well if we have found ourselves as some neoGenetics which encode the life of the monetary system there is the beneficial gene (the subscribed capitalist) the protooncogene (the person dissatisfied with the effects of capitalism on the environment) Yet still using and agreeing to the system in place and the oncogene (the socialist that believes resources should be provisioned based on need not competition or the anarchist with the extreme vision of the end of capitalism - rebelling against its organism. Perhaps this is how life operates ... on orders of magnitude. Physics and chemistry is the code for DNA , DNA the code for organic life and organic units (us) the code for some yet unidentified collective organism on a larger order (money? Society?)

The question I'd ask is less "can such a comparison be made" and more "what does it entail"? What new insights do you think this conceptualisation offers? What predictions result from applying it? Does it agree with the actual history of money? — Echarmion

Aristotle once said “ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.“ I appreciate your openness to following the viewpoint to a conclusion without necessarily believing it.

What insights can we gain from money as a living system?
On adaptation; living organisms can only adapt so fast to changing environmental conditions. This is of note in the current climate crisis. Money if it is a living system depends on the human environment. It’s “volatility” or instability/ inability to thrive is directly related to the state of human conditions. Consider countries in poverty. Their currencies tend to be weak and unstable. People favour materials (food, shelter and water) more so than the value of their money which owes to the reason their currencies have little clout against those of the developed west. Money gains value in a stable human environment.
Living populations go through waves of population explosion followed by decline based on the whether their environment is favourable or not. Money also has this tendency: think of the impacts of war and social discord on economy.
On mortality; living systems strive to survive. They do this by being build on dispensable units (cells) which are regularly overturned for the health of the whole organism. Money is significantly more stable in existence than any individual human. We are born into the monetary hierarchy just as a cell is born into a body that it serves even tho it most likely will never outlive the organism in question. When I die I’m replaced with more units that subscribe to the Same rules that govern the necessity and existence of money.
One could argue that money is not necessary for the survival of the human. Self sustainability or living off the grid and subsistence farming can be completely removed from capital interests. But the same can be said of money. It is self sustaining despite the few that choose not to utilise it.
On natural selection; superpowers dictate the fundamental currencies. The moneys of the world with most ability to control/ exert action are the most successful; the euro the dollar the yen. Money that fails to thrive goes extinct.
Money also evolves. From shells and wheat to precious metals to bank balances to bonds and numeric values. It is likely that money 1000 years from now will look different from what it is these days as it is now since thousands of years ago.
On energy; life is fundamentally entropic. It achieves self preservation by always utilising less energy than it expends in order to stay stable. If it didn’t it would run out of steam and perish.
Beliefs are incredibly energy efficient. As the brains that hold them are designed to utilise their environment effectively. If a belief costed more to the body than it gains from said belief the belief would be terminal and ineffective. Considering that money is a phenomenon that aids not only survival but also luxury it’s capacity for abundance is often surplus to the requirements needed to uphold it.

The history of money is in interpersonal trust. Money is a measure of social cooperation much like the biological processes that ensure an organisms cells work towards the health of the whole. If In the case of cancer (or social retaliation) The units refuse to cooperate the organism fails to thrive. When people experience social unrest the economy is the first to suffer.

↪Benj96 Biological systems are based on chemistry and physics. If it thrives or dies is based on quite logical reasoning. A monetary system is a faith based system.

Does this make a problem to your model? — ssu

Not really. You cite that biology is based on physics and chemistry. Where exactly do we draw the line then between non living chemistry/physics and living chemistry and physics? If we are just blatantly ignoring the fact that we don’t have that answer then it’s not at all unreasonable to question the possibility the life extends to systems formed by biology. In fact if money is a process of the living it stand to reason that it’s less of a jump than the statement “the living is a process of the dead/inanimate (physics/chemistry).

It’s possible to apply the characteristics of living things to the monetary system (if maybe only to the same extend as to viruses) but nonetheless either we require Better parameters for the state of living or we must include a larger set of things in the state of living.

When does the inorganic become the organic?
Faith/ beliefs are based on biological phenomena just as biological phenomena are based on physical/chemical phenomena. Is it all living? Is it all dead? How to we discern the endpoint of each state

3.8k
Oh baby my lie is the biggest. Most girls say it’s too big for them to even take it all. Think you’re up for the challenge? :eggplant: :peach: — Pfhorrest

when you say “think you’re up to the challenge” do you mean “I” specifically or the proverbially “you” - a general question to any girl reading this.
“I” as a man can confirm I’m not up to the challenge but I’m sure there are men out there with that inclination perhaps you can ask them

While we're on the topic of truth and lies, who are you Benji? :lol:

You always ask these drive-by questions of, on occasion philosophical depth, yet I nary a time recall you participating in an in-depth discussion. Not to say I have often either, I leave my little input and continue on. Just curious. I'm sure others reading have a latent curiosity as well. — Outlander

Well... in all honesty ...If I knew who I was I would tell you. But I find myself questioning even that as my perception of myself or rather “the self” changes regularly. My question to you would be why do you want to know who I am or maybe, what answer are you expecting? Care to elaborate?

Those who attempt to communicate and connect more will find their language repeated back to them more by those around them. And the more we care about those around us, the more effort and attention we’ll put into understanding them and being understood by them. This is how children pick up languages so easily - they’re desperate to be understood. — Possibility

Fascinating ... so by the second generation of islanders realistically we could expect to see a cohesive group forming where the children likely possess the linguistic capacity to understand the majority of the “elders” Or at least the compromised Go between language that the first generation developed to cohabitate as well as maybe the specific language of their respective parents.

Could we maybe consider that the perfect question is also it’s own answer?

I ask because as many of you have pointed out already a question supposes the seeking of knowledge or truth that is missing. It suggest an absent or unknown facet (the answer) which would complete/ go to form the total resolution of the question.

I would think that the best/perfect question is answered within or by itself. That it requires no external answer or supplementary information.

In this sense it seems to be rhetorical In nature - that is to say a question that requires no answer because the question itself provides the profundity or wisdom or truth/ knowledge/ awareness necessary to understand its own supposition.

This is weirdly reminiscent of, or at least similar to, descartes “I think therefore I am” However that is a statement not a question and assumes a definition for “thought” which many are unsure about as it is left ambiguous as to what he meant by “I think”.

So what if we considered a simplified version of this statement posited as the question “Am I?” (Roughly equivalent to but not quite the same as “Do I exist? -because again “exist“ assumes a pre-determined definition open to ambiguity of interpretation.)

This is also reminiscent of Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be? That is the question.”

The question “Am I?” or even “Do I?” or “Be I?” (Though this one sounds grammatically incorrect compared to “am”) is answered by the act of pondering it in the first place.

“Awareness” In this sense is the capacity to both ask and be answered simultaneously by the same action.

The reason I didn’t suggest “Who am I?” Or “What am I?” Or “why, where, when am I?” Is because all of these words assume more than I can know without other questions or information or definitions and assumptions - for example subjects and objects, substances, causes and effects, times and locations etc.

“Am I?” On the other hand is a question that can only arise from the state of “I am”.

I could reduce this further to simply “I?” Which is answered by the “I” that asked in the first place. But many would argue this isn’t a question. I would note that questions can be a singular word by itself. Such as the request “Please?”. In the end I prefer the “Am I?- I am!” couple as the perfect question and answer simultaneously. It would encompass all things related to “I” Which is anything within the realm of distinction of things by an awareness or conscious entity and formulation of definitions by this virtue and therefore all possible questions that could be by evolution of the complexity of “I am”.

Ah okay. Super thank you. I was worrying I inadvertently caused some unwanted trouble. Haha. Thanks for the response. Happy philosophising!

Then you are defining "true" in relation to honesty. Many people are not honest about their emotions and feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I’m definitely not. I’m defining the realness of emotions and feelings as only to the person who has them. Honesty or dishonesty of oneself with regard to their emotions doesn’t negate the emotion they felt. Whether they convinced themselves they were happy or knew they were happy is irrelevant in the fact that their subjective experience is true to them but not to others. I cannot measure objectively exactly what type and how much units of happiness you perceive yourself to feel. But that doesn’t mean you didn’t feel it.

The original point I was making is that many human emotions and sensations can be ambiguous (For example “bittersweet”) but the measure of truth value of these things is not dependent on them being unambiguous such as in scientific method where ambiguity must be removed and concepts objectified and measured. Science only goes so far in measuring truth value/ the trueness of things whilst other forms of human discipline are necessary to comprehend or measure other forms of truth. Mostly being relative.

Your depth of understanding of my statement “emotions and feelings are true to the person who has them” is rather hollow. True does not equal honest otherwise Universal truths could not encompass dishonesties or the meaning of falsity of any kind but unfortunately they are a fact of life and do indeed exist in the realm of what is true about reality.

Truth cannot be grounded in ambiguity, — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you sure of this? Is something that changes or has a bivalency/ multiple facets any less true than something that stays singular/ the same/identical or unchanging?

Sure for the concretisation of scientific facts and observations, we take truth to be the most objective, consistent, most measurable and repeatable things but the issue is.... one must accept that personal views, emotions and feelings are true to the person who has them. Even demonstrable. That is to say they exist and are true relative to certain beings/ things/ locations in space or perspectives and cannot be proven repeatably by the convention of science.

Is poetry Art music etc not “true“ Because their definitions and the meaning surrounding them are wholly ambiguous by nature? Is ambiguity itself isn’t true Or holds no truth value - either has no meaning or doesn’t exist or is not useful - then what is “ambiguity” And why are we using it in relevance to anything at all?

thank you for your insight I found it really interesting. I think I also settled on the idea that we can pinpoint a topic of discussion and talk about it meaningfully without ourselves being entirely unanimous in what our definition of it is.

I feel that perhaps understanding a topic Well is analogous to gps triangulation in that different individuals from different backgrounds of experience, meaning and understanding can “bounce” views off others which in turn do the same in order to build a multiplex concept of the location or in this case “definition/knowledge” of the topic centrally addressed.

This is also kind of like the “collective mean” definition that is to say the sum of all interpretations of a concept laid out graphically would look sort of like a wave with the Scientific or dictionary definition Or functional/utilitarian definition close to the Center and more metaphorical or artistically licensed definitions spread out further and further away from the Center.

For example the meaning of “chair” might have a wave distribution with most people (say 100,000) placing “a solid platform usually on three to four legs that is used to sit on” roughly in the center while a few limited individuals (Say 100) may have “the item I throw at the wall when Im angry” taking central position but obviously as a collective this would be a marginal definition low and far away from the wave peak - the collective interpretation of the word chair.

One sign of a fact is that facts are always historical. — tim wood

“Energy will still act/occur tomorrow” or “a photon will travel between two stars some time from now” or “an hour will pass three days from now” or “history will be made” are these not facts about the future dictated by a conservation law or logic of the past or present?

Facts are not always historical. That would mean that nothing in the present moment is a fact because it isn’t historical it’s present. Then tell me what exactly you’re experiencing right now because it sure isn’t the past but your experience is no less a fact of your experience. I could tell you the statements above at any moment in my life and or yours or anyone else’s and their logic will still apply no?

is a formula not a fact if it is true? Is the truth not revealed by fact? Both in a legal sense and a scientific sense

Talking about human evolution is largely a waste of in my opinion, because we're changing our environment so much quicker. The goalposts are moving much more quickly than evolution can keep up with. — Mijin

Very true. Cultural evolution is probably by now a much more dominant and faster pace influential phenomenon.

I am preparing for a science fiction book :)

of course beliefs should be cared about. The world we live in is dominated by belief systems as they’re are likely an unavoidable fact of the human experience. Beliefs and facts are sometimes interchangeable in that facts are often redacted and reassigned belief status and beliefs are often proven to be facts. Both are means bu which we understand the world and are subject to time and changing capacity to verify each of them. So I don’t really understand what you’re asking by “what do you mean by beliefs?”

I mean your views on the subject at hand. Whether factually, anecdotally/ experientially or intuitively or superstitiously founded. The importance of mine or your beliefs is an irrelevant feature of the discussion as it’s not what I asked nor is it the information I’m looking to attain. We could always begin a discussion on whether beliefs are important or not or what we mean by then but for the sake of this argument let’s take it at face value.

They are different relative to each other, and they differ by succession. — Daniel

Ah okay I think I understand what you’re saying now. They’re Inherently different due to the very fact that they are chronological and ordered one after the other. That their “succession” rather than I guess a “superposition” is a qualitative difference between them.

But does that mean that it is impossible for the universe to ever do the exact same things twice? Because times passage as well as spatial dimension means any two things that exist must be in relativity to each other? The only thing I know about identical simultaneity is the existence of overlapping parallel timelines or universes but I don’t know much about it

yes this.

Could that not be because when you have 1000s of cycles operating in the same spatiotemporal location (earth) they give rise to complex and diverse Seemingly chaotic interactions with one another? It doesn’t mean they stop being cycles though.

The cycle of respiration of animals and plants, cycle of an electron spinning around its nucleus, the cycle of homeostasis and hormone regulation, of night and day, sleep and awake, Water, nitrogen etc are all linked. Each one has a defined repetitive process but they all interact with each other at various stages along their path so ... could that not be why time seems linear and nonrepetitive?

Time, however, continues to progress in linear fashion. — TheMadFool

You can not verify that from the brevity of single human existence. If you are walking along a cycle that’s big enough and you are small enough the cycle appears a straight line. Just as the horizon of the planet appears straight/flat even though the planet is a sphere (sorry flat earthers).

You’re highlighting a 24 hour cycle - a Human routine, but omitted the fact that cycles can be contained within larger cycles such as the water and carbon cycle contained on a tectonic cycle contained in the orbit of the planets, Which reside in the orbit the solar system around the Center of the galaxy, orbits of galaxies themselves. To name a few.

I can’t see why we can justifiably disregard the possibility that everything operates on a frequency of cycles just because our “week” is different this time than last week or that we may not be around long enough to appreciate the vast spectrum of frequency. Cycles interact and that complicate the nature of their recurrence I’d imagine something that is always changing may be doing so because multiple components remain the same.

How can imaginary things not be profound or useful? All “arbitrary” concepts are imaginary when it comes down to it. The second is a completely artificial demarcation of time imagined by humans yet it’s utility is profoundly diverse.

You likely work every day for an imaginary value that is collectively trusted to work for everyone. Currency. If they all decided not to believe in its value anymore and therefore not accept it as legal tender your money would be nothing more than a flimsy set of paper notes.

In essence you’re trading in “trust and security of belief in value”. A value that isn’t really there. So I would not go as far as to underestimate the power of imagined concepts.

this has to do with major histocompatibility complex and it’s not everyone that an immune system will reject the organs of; of course it’s incredibly rare to have the same immune profile siblings are generally the closest but it is immune cells that do not recognise the foreign tissue. What is to be said for the foreign tissue cells themselves?

this is kind of like how in organ donation recipients ... new behaviours and cravings/tendencies developed in the patient in line with those that the deceased donor had while alive. Perhaps your right and maybe the heart can have a healthy desire for specific nutrients or lifestyle that other hearts don’t have

Ah okay I understand what you’re saying better now. Interesting. Despite the fact that they - as a whole - generate the body and brain necessary for typical human conscious experience it seems that they themselves are pretty much unaware of it. Living in their own world oblivious to the entire body and it’s full range of capacities.

The confounding question for me really is what is it about the organisation of all of our cells that solidified our sense of awareness. Where to we place the transitions the boundary or so to señal isolate that part of ourselves which identifies and reflects on said self? Assuming the common belief that the brain is involved, how many Neurons constitutes an aware brain that satisfies the conditions we identify as Human

most of our internal systems don’t require information directly from the brain to continue operations, — Possibility

I wouldn’t agree. Most systems do required input from the brain to continue operations; the hypothalamus secretes several hormones that regulate the bodies different systems; hunger, core temperature, sweating, blood volume, uterine contractions etc. Also how do any autonomous aspects of our tissues work without the fundamental voluntary act of Finding food and water, chewing swallowing etc all of which are governed by the brain.

The only reason brain dead patients “survive” is because of myriad interventions to keep them breathing, fed, remove wastes, prevent skin ulcers and infection due to inability to self clean. Basically a hospital takes over all the executive functions that normally would be carried out by the brain. So no most of our internal systems do require nervous impulses and even critical indirect cause effect reactions with the external world caused by our brain.