"action" or "change" I would have said is the product of interplay between energy and time. No energy + all time = no change, and similarly all energy + no time = no change either. Only when energy and time are in some ratio between but not including 1 and 0 does anything actually happen "act".

Because ceasing to be cannot be any scarier than the trials and tribulations of living. — Wandering-Philosopher

Some people are comforted by a sense of control or knowledge or purpose or identity, the list goes on... which is why death terrifies them because it is a loss of any semblance of control over your existence/awareness, a point at which your direct influence on the world stops (hence why legacy is so prized to affirm ones validity in life).

It is also a point at which knowledge fails to extend beyond . .. a point of total ignorance and uncertainty, it is also the loss of ones identity. So naturally people fear it.

However if one were to live by a few fundamental philospohical tenets / beliefs - such as "I have no true control over my life", "I don't require purpose I am the purpose of my existence" -being present/state of now etc, or "my identity is an illusion/assumption built out of independent bias/prejudices and choices etc" or others like "rebirth" or "panpsychicism"... and so on, the list of logical reasons to fear death diminish.

My basic reason to try and avoid death is, that my life is the only time in which to do stuff that living things do. Which i'm sure are likely more diverse than those that dead things do.

While being a rock for a few million years sounds like a hoot I'd prefer my carbon to contribute to an experience of something for a while first. Haha

mo0d.

Not neccesarily — Outlander

True this does make sense. I mean even I when I play videogames can get invested in the levels etc. So would you reckon being believable enough everyone would just plug in for life?

See the issue I have is you know you are playing a game designed for you. After a while wouldnt you have the desire to go back to a world that isnt centred on you? Where you run the risk of dying even? Because in the game the lack of fear of death because you know its simply game over and you can pay for another round means you can get progressively more risky and your behaviour totally reckless despite never being like this in real life.

That may be seen as a positive for some people but I feel like I would het disenfranchised and that this self destructive behaviour based on the immortal nature of gaming would be harmful to me even if I were to stop playing and enter authentic society again.

observer" emerging from the big bang but backwards, — Kenosha Kid

This gave me shivers. Oh look here comes the observer (13.8 billion years of emergence and evolution later) ... humans/life.

So, if there are other boxes, doesn't there have to be a larger container? — Bitter Crank

Assuming that these boxes require individual space, that's to say that they arent able to overlap or exist simultaneously in the same location. Considering that the 1D, 2D, 3D and time dimensions exist and overlap one another in the same location I've no doubt other universes if they occupy other dimensions can simply be exactly in the same place as ours.

The sense of the sentence is determined by whom is saying it and the context. If I were to imply that MacIntosh was mocking Macgillycuddy by using quotation marks, punctuation and tone in the sentence then it is resolved.
"' 'its raining', but I dont think it is." Here Macintosh is quoting Macgillcuddy mockingly and then affirming his counter belief.
Nothing has fundamentally changed about the content of the sentence simply how it is applied to the situation.

Or ... if you consider Macintosh saying his absurd phrase but you ask for further qualification of the sentence (context), it can be firmly placed within a logical sentiment. For example;
"Its raining, but I dont believe it is." "What do you mean?" 1). "Well despite the fact that i am aware there is an outer world where such things surely happen, i am in a windowless room, and i choose only to believe what i can sense in front of me.

Though philosophically extreme, this would be a rational context to place such a sentence.

Or "it's raining but I dont believe it is" "How so?" "Rain often begins as snow at higher altitude only melting in the last moments. So if it spends most of its fall as snow and a little as rain which one is it truly? Both are falling right now at this moment. So it depends on your perspective. "It is raining, but I dont believe it is as I believe it is snowing."

Although pretty pointless and annoying ... these eccentric rationalisation no less remove the absurdity of such a sentence or at least some of it.

If nothing is done and the sentence is allowed to remain standalone with no contact then it is absurd.

I then realized that theism is, at its core, a belief that there is a being whose commands one has to obey without question. Isn't this slavery? A slave must obey his master's command and the master makes it clear that he has zero tolerance for any disobedience — TheMadFool

I think if you take the fundamental tenet that God is an ideal state of being... then the consideration of whether you're submitting to slavery or not is null and void. Would you consider subordination as ideal? Would he/she/it/them consider tyranny as ideal?

Be careful when you attempt to contemplate God/ Gods as you like everyone else likely have a lot of preconceptions and misconceptions that we are unaware of. Most of which have an origin not in the divine but in human manipulation, power play, authority and politics - using a state of ideal (using a gods name) in vain -for their own agenda.

I also dont believe God, if one exists, is benevolent at least not by the narrow definitions of what a human considers good or bad....as our concept of good is at the very least always centred around our privilege as a species and self entitlement, or "the world according to us." Which will be inherently biased and changes constantly through history. Consider that benevolence on the scale of a God would apply to things beyond what we can even know or imagine yet.

Also I'd imagine benevolence would disallow for freedom of choice. He would always be intervening by moral imperative and giving us no choice to commit grave errors or mistakes. Then we could not learn.

For me the closest association I can make to a God that exists is energy. A phenomenon/substance from which all things arise. Energy is the the core concept underlying omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence as it is the propagator of action.

I recommend the documentary "The 13th" on Netflix/ online about the abolition of the thirteenth amendment and how racism changed over time. Very interesting and I think you'll find some answers there.

1. Random: No two thoughts are correlated in any way. One moment I'm thinking of bats and the next moment of the Hydrogen nucleus. — TheMadFool

How are they not correlated? For example if you understand knowledge that links two individual thoughts for example "all bats are made of organic matter - some of which contains hydrogen atoms with a nucleus".

If I was a scientist investigating the effects of different isotopes of hydrogen in the metabolism of a bat would these two concepts not very much be linked and associated within my studies.

I believe all information is linked and ones level of factual knowledge pertains to their capacity to make accurate associations whatever they may be between any two or more concepts.

this was explained so well.

Do you accept the verdict? — David Mo

The defense accepts the verdict (despite the fact that genetically the two individuals cannot be identical if there is an age difference but anyways)

There are more ways things can go wrong than right. Luck is never on our side. :sad:
1hReplyShare — TheMadFool

That depends of perspective. A failure is still valuable information for learning or approaching a state of control where luck or probability has less impact and is more directed. You could not identify that specific thing which is right if you did not have a knowledge of that which is not right.

In the statement there are more things that "arent" than things that "are" for any state, definition or any quality... it really depends on perspective. .

For example if I hold the concept "dog" in mind then yes there are certainly more things that "arent" this then those that "are" but perhaps if I consider "universe" instead then the opposite is true. Just as with "wrong" and "right"... according to whom? Or what goal? Or what state?

This question is for Christians: Can you name a sin that would cause eternal damage warranting an eternity in hell? — Wheatley

I'm not really christian but perhaps in a metaphorical sense the sin that would cause eternal damage is creation itself. Creation in the sense that with construction/ordering/building of systems of negative entropy such as life comes the antagonist - destruction/chaos/disordering of said system. With the ability to generate an awareness that can perceive existence as good there must also be the opposite. Otherwise existence is always neutral.

If you cannot suffer when you dont exist in an state of awareness then to live is risky business. You could be instead in a state of total neutrality where there would be no virtue or sin, no pleasure nor displeasure

I think "pain = punishment" only applies temporarily and perhaps not at all. There are some people who have their minds wired or trained to perceive pain as enjoyable or pleasureful or desirable. Think masochism/ self- harm/ bdsm etc. Or those who have mastered meditation techniques who endure suffering neutrally, with indifference or just have strong resilience.

Secondly what is painful to one may not be painful to another both in terms of physical pain tolerance/threshold as well as the quality of psychological torture which would induce mental anguish/suffering or pain.

Pain tolerance can be achieved after a time by simply being overwhelmed by the stimulus to the point where you pass out or endorphins flood your nervous system and impede any further insult to the brains processing.

Plus, regarding documented physical tortures we have learned that people can reach a fugue state of vacancy whereby they have dis-accociated completely with their body, have no fear of death and simply become un-receptive to any degree of further torture up to and beyond the point of death of the body. At this stage the torturer can no longer increase the degree of suffering to the individual.

Based on these I think it's very hard to suffer an eternity of suffering. Especially if you have suffered so long that you have lost all experience, memory or recollection of what it feels like not to suffer. Without contrast to pain I would imagine the brain would find a way to adapt.

I believe what is meant by "sin" resulting in damnation or hellish conditions applies to life rather than death, sort of karmic sense. He who does bad unto others will likely have bad done onto him. In essence you can create your own hell through your behaviour. If allow myself to have a cynical, pessimistic, depressed or vindictive mental state - at war with the world, I will perceive only a world of mistrust, hate, fear and suffering through this shadowy veil I cast over my reality.

M = Only material things are affected by material things

What needs to be proved is that if x is affected by something physical then that x has to be physical. — TheMadFool

Define "material". Is this to say things made of "matter" or things that exist. If it is the first than it would be preposterous- clearly forces affect matter. In fact no matter or "material" can influence other material without forces and dimension between them.

But... as you'll find with any matter (material) if you supply it with enough energy (such as speed or heat); first the bonds will be broken, then the cloud of gaseous atoms will be made into a plasma of free flowing electrons and nuclei and then even those will be accelerate into their equivalent under relativity = pure energy. So when is matter no longer a material? Can I destroy matter? Or is energy simply that form of material which is uncertain enough in its state and high enough in its potential to influence matter?

fell in love with different females of different species, — Olivier5

Did you just assume their gender? (/sexual orientation) Haha :p

It's much simpler than that. When you hit your finger with the hammer, it hurts. When you hit the TV, it doesn't. — David Mo

I think if I hammered my TV is would be very painful for me. Haha. I would feel the negative impacts, hurt, anguish and frustration of having to go buy a new TV for a start. What impact does the concept of "possession/ ownership" or "functionality" or "value" of material objects to a person have on its ability to register as "pain" or another emotional state or sensation in the subject. I hit my finger it hurts as a location in my body. I hit the TV it hurts- but in a qualitatively less injurious way and more psychologically.

How would you solve the problem? The Galactic Supreme Court would certainly appreciate it. — David Mo

Well considering alpha- centauri is 4.36 light years from earth, in order to send information between these two machines by any "rays" of the electromagnetic kind which obey the speed of light as a maximum travelling velocity, there would be approximately 4.3 years of time elapsed between the point at which the information was collected and when the retransmission was received in either direction.

I would imagine the process would have some kind of accountability as most travel services do, either a log time for each session or a record in storage of data which was collected during the running of the machines or CCTV footage, identity processing etc. You would also have witnesses -others that travelled from the origin to the destination around the same time, staff that work at the teleportation centre, perhaps a passport security point or other human or robotic contacts that register your travel in some form.

By that fact you could simply examine the records and perform an investigation to see which identity can be previously accounted for within 4.3 years of using the machine both forward and backwards in time. This would determine at the very least the direction of travel which could be used to establish the original being.

On failing this you could take biopsies from both individuals and examine the length of their telomeres in their DNA. With every successive generation of cellular replication a telomere shortens (loss of genetic code). Bearing in mind that the two individuals could not have existed simultaneously for a period of 4 years, the one with the shorter telomeres is the individual whose genetic code has been replicating for 4 years longer while the other was travelling (in a static copied stait of information). Therefore the shorter telomered person would be eliminated as the older "post" travel outdated version.

If this cannot be achieved for some impossibly unlikely reason, without sufficient evidence to identify the original the supreme galactic courts would have no choice but to permit the existence of two separate selves as the prevention of failure of the machine was not the under the direct responsibility of the passenger.

However limits on travel between worlds could be enforced to prevent them crossing paths or residing in the same jurisdiction/ area where they could encounter one another.

They change what you experience, of course. And we can call the content of consciousness 'states' of consciousness. But this sheds no light on what the general necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness (or identity in my view) are in anything other than humans. — bert1

If I were to die - i am dead for an hour we'll say - due to severe hypothermia, my metabolism has shut down and an EEG shows no signs of brain activity at all, my heart has stopped. The medics re-warm my body and resuscitate me and luckily I have little to no impairment due to the protection offered by extreme cooling of my body.

If the content of consciousness is 'states' of consciousness and I experience a point at which I died and a point at which I came back to life, is temporary death therefore a state of consciousness?

And if not, then what was I for the moments I was dead and furthermore the moment at which I became alive again? Is my identity completely different if I come to life a second time? Am I somehow now a compeltely new conscious individual or does my consciousness transcend the gap in my living state - in which case death would be a state of consciousness.

If I went on to say that I had experienced during the time when I was dead, or could account for events that occurred while in that state -such as is provided in anecdotal evidence from hundreds of rescucitated individuals what then do we make of death as a conscious state or not a conscious state?

Time is a parameter of physical processes. It is discrete and unidirectional. — Vladimir Krymchakov

What makes time discrete? In what sense? As in that it has a beginning and an end? If so how would you prove your reasoning? Especially if energy cannot be created nor destroyed - if that is the case then there is always interactions and exchange of information which requires time.

Or is it discrete in passage - as in the unitary second - because seconds are arbitrary artificial constructs which arent natural to the universe. They are discrete because we chose their length.

Or is it discrete in rate? Because as we know from relativity the rate at which time passes varies depending on the speed of an object. Time dilation and contraction occur so even the second -our discrete unit- changes depending on the strength of gravity or velocities.

We can change our experiences and our identity by altering our brains, but we can't change our consciousness. — bert1

I think you would find our consciousness very much can be changed by altering our brain. Taking psychedelics -ie adding chemicals to the composition of the brain, being inflicted with brain damage, meditating, sleeping. All of these actions dramatically influence our state of consciousness

Only such a complex system as the brain can produce consciousness — Vladimir Krymchakov

Does the universe not have to be by logical implication a more complex system than the systems within it? (The brain) and therefore your reasoning would point to the universe being of greater potential for awareness than the minute compact system that is the brain.

Consciousness without an active brain does not exist. — Vladimir Krymchakov

I think this is a very reductive take on the relationship between consciousness and the brain. For example; define brain? Can a brain be artificial also? And if so what makes inanimate non biological matter (robots etc) have the capacity to have a brain?

Can it be constructed of much larger systems for example ecosystems and if so why not even larger celestial systems?

Are simple organisms with only neural tissues rather than an organ (ie.brainless) creatures not conscious then? Are jellyfish completely unaware of their existence at all -just an automaton of biological tissue aimlessly reproducing with zero agency?

If the brain is naturally occuring then why could it not be a organ which amplifies and diversifies the behaviour of a fundamental force (consciousness or perceptions, or reiteration of information onto itself, just as the body amplifies and diversifies the behaviour of fundamental units of matter - atoms - to build things that do not have qualities the same as their basic components.

...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic. — Frank Apisa

I would argue that the installation of a concept of God into humanity is not by magic but rather necessity and furthermore does not strictly work unidirectionally - that is to say by artifcial construction/creation by human minds and applied to the universe, but also from the universe applied to the development and evolution of first perception, then language, and intuitive questioning.

Perhaps some conscious ideas are archetypes that occur naturally without the influence of culture or societal constructs. For example "pattern". I doubt "pattern" is a culturally developed /artificially manufactured idea but rather something a). Necessary for the evolution of conscious beings and b). A quality of the universe which is observable and useful as a natural platform for which aspects of language can be based to qualify such a phenomenon which inherently exists.
Also words like "mother" which naturally derive from the biological parameters required for sexual reproduction and thus continuity if life. Or "cycle" or "food", "sun", "light", "power". All of these things are both required to form life and words constructed by life to identify what contributed to their own existence.

In that sense "God" - though difficult to define and heavily loaded with added cultural annotations and societal revision could have originally been a simple and effective definition for energy, consciousness, origin, creation, continuity, subjectivity, awe, wonder etc. All of which are now considered somewhat associated to general descriptions of the entity/ experience of the universe.

The universe created us. Whether intentionally or by progresive natural physical processes or emergence. In either case, considering the lack of knowledge our earliest ancestors had regarding just about anything non- instinctive or habitual it's quite incredible to develop such a concept as a definition for all of space (omnipresence), all information and perceivable data (omniscience) and all energy, potential and capacity (omnipotence).

Let alone a definition which has remained applicable to this day millennia later.

Okay I appreciate the clarification. Thanks :)

Thank you for sharing what you "believe — Frank Apisa

Why is "believe" in quotation marks here? It's not exactly up for debate whether beliefs exist nor whether my belief is as permissible as anyone elses. Comes across a little sarcastic/standoff-ish but I dunno I could be reading too much into it. I just gave a perspective on the commonalities between scientific endeavour and religious endeavour.

If the anaesthetic also made you experience time more slowly, — zookeeper

Wouldnt this mean the intensity of the pain would be extremely reduced... as your perception of the frequency (time dependent) of pain impulses that you're receiving from the injury site would be dilated out along a longer time period. I guess I would come across as a dull continuous pain

wow i had no idea. Fascinating

Can a believer explain reality by referring to a basic tenet (such as God/Gods) that can be collectively shared and agreed upon - Yes.

Can a scientist explain reality by referring to a basic tenet (observation) that can be collectively shared and agreed upon - Yes.

Does a believer have a methodology to support their belief - yes. Doctrine, lifestyle, contemplation, prayer, anecdotal support, ethical principles, argument and logic.

Does a scientist have a methodology to support their belief -yes. Scientific method, experiment, observation, repeatability of result, hypothesis, ethical principles, argument and logic.

Does a believer observe their belief in action, function or influence of reality. Yes -creation, free will/karma etc, morals, justice, interpersonal relationships, social structures, applicability.

Does a scientist observe their beliefs in action , function or influence of reality. Yes -laws, dynamics, behaviours, interactions, applicability tecnology.

PARADIGM; is a believers understanding of God as reality subject to change, revision, redefinition and incorporation with current conditions? Can new interpretations and explanations be raised to satisfy current argument - Yes; new religions, interpretations etc.

PARADIGM; is a scientists understanding of the laws of nature of reality subject to change, revision, redefinition and incorporation with current conditions? Can new interpretations and explanations be raised to satisfy current argument -Yes. New theories, hypothesis and discoveries.

STABILITY; does the use of the concept of God stand up against the passage of time. Has the argument remained conserved despite millennia of discussion - neither denying or confirming Gods existence? Yes

STABILITY; Does a scientists use of the concept of observation stand up against the passage of time. Has the argument remain conserved despite
Millennia of discussion - neither finding an ultimate answer nor denying that one is achievable by these means? Yes.

The way I see it is that the spiritual and the scientific are observing the same thing - reality. But reality is dynamic and thus can be reasonably explained by either discipline. It is based on what the of evidence satisfies your trust in an explanation. Religion and science are not incompatible and it would be more constructive to unite the two through an understanding of consciousness rather than pointing out the innumerable differences that distinguish them.

If I am the only person who believes in a God and observe the entity all around me is that God real to me? Or am I delusional. If everyone believes in that God is it now real to me or still a delusion? The best description we have for reality is that which most people can agree upon.
Objective reality as perceived by subjects is the culmination of all subjective experiences.

So I believe we are in a constant evolving transition through history from "how reality is" when we do not have knowledge and thus control to "how reality does" when we do have knowledge and control. Going from that which is subject to the all knowing all powerful to that which is the all knowing/powerful.

Thank you. Very interesting info. I'm going to look up this rat experiment

One test I use for definitions is: Does the definition point unambiguously to the word being defined? — A Seagull

Time is information, the rate of which at any local point in space can be determined on a thermal spectrum from a state of solid stasis (absolute zero) to pure potential/potency (speed of light).

that's right... perhaps I should've have clarified better by using the term "mutual meaning" or "communicable meaning". It can defintely have individual meaning

Correct. I wonder though what Wittgenstein meant when he rejected the idea of a private language being possible? To me, it seems perfectly reasonable to imagine someone talking to himself in an invented language which he alone knows — TheMadFool

I also agree. Especially if we considered this person invented a device like an primitive sound recorder instead of writing in order to document and record their thoughts. Then they would definitely require a private spoken language that they could articulate out loud so they could listen to it later and retrieve the information.

You will get better answers to some of your questions from physicist than from philosophers.

My advice would be to try a science forum. Or read a book. — Banno

Except the point of my question was not whether this is the ideal place to search for accurate knowledge on "time". My question was about your opinions. Your views. "You" are implicit in my questioning. So in fact this is exactly the right place for me to ask such a thing. And I got my diversity of replies...what i came for. Everyone can read a physics book on time....but i wanted to know... how does a selection of strangers articulate their experience of this phenomenon. Is it like me? Completely different to mine? Can I learns something from them?

And I did. Even a demonstration which I found very amusing.

a superb demonstration of "later"

All I know for sure is that the present, or consciousnesses in the present, can influence consciousnesses in the past. I know, because I've achieved this. — neonspectraltoast

Is this to say that perception of past events are dictated by current mood, attitude or state of awareness? As in if I were to enjoy something in the past which I later discovered was a lie and now only see this past deception as a waste of my energy or pointless? Because we only store memories in the present. So I would imagine memories of the past are very much influenced by present state

Communism contradicts itself by implementing its regime through a hierarchy. Capitalism works effectively because its ethos is in line with hierarchical order and the fact that some are permitted be more wealthy and powerful than others. Hierarchy of responsibilities, power and authority naturally lead to a sense of "elite", social classes and corruption as well as blame and inequal appropriation of guilt and fault.

Communism would only work if there is no leader but rather a co-operative where everyone fulfills the same basic duties. Or at the very least a leader that a). Does not want to be a leader. b). Has no neccesity or desire for material wealth power or possessions. c) has the intellectual capacity to understand the gravity of such a position and appreciates truly the responsibility of providing for all. d). Is so humble, self aware and contemplative that they willingly accept their inevitable shortcomings e). Sharp enough to outwit anyone who is driven to overthrow them.

But as you can see these qualities are on the borderline of contradicting eachother and to find someone with such a unique set of skills is much less likely than finding someone driven by ego and the endless pursuit of power over others.

I think we havent quite escaped natures self-regulatory processes. When we get over confident in our dominance nature has a tendency to say "eat shit" and sends a pandemic, or exponential rise in cancer, climate change, social conflicts, poverty, famine and all the other nasties that cut a population down to a manageable size. We cant keep populating the planet like we are doing that much is clear.

Nature will balance the books either way. The only choice is whether we do it ourselves in a way we can control to mitigate suffering or do we simply ignore the issues we create until they minimise our impact by default.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

So by this mechanism if self-harm has any genetic aspects they could remain in the gene pool so long as they didnt result in genital mutilation, castration or any harm that damages the chances of reproduction.

I would suspect you would see higher rates of suicide in older adults then except the youth are disproportionately more vulnerable so self destructive tendencies must be largely influenced by nurture and environment over genetics.