No. Meaning doesn't persist over time.

The world around us evolves over time. The language we use to describe it also evolves over time. And the culture in which language is contextualised too evolves over time.

Take the word "Dog" for example. Now it means something concrete.

But consider 10, 000 years in the future when languages exchange sounds, written text and usage. Assuming humans still exist, English likely won't - At least not in any form familiar to us at present. Dogs too will have evolved. And our culture will likely be very different - perhaps dogs will have been replaced with something that is more "man's best friend" than the humble canine.

The alphabet may change. And if it doesnt, the words we use most definitely will. As they have done so in the past steadily with time.

Information has an attrition rate. It is lost with time. Because memory is lost with time as well as the means to decipher it (language and context). If I write a book describing life in 2022/23 and store it somewhere safe for thousands of years, the linguistic experts of the future will at most establish an interpretative rough guide - a vague meaning, for what I said.

If we could decode the first writings of the earliest humans as they meant it then we could reasonably assume the same of future generations. But we cannot with 100% confidence. So we cannot assume the future will be the same.

The only things that may stand the test if time is mathematics and physics formulae. They are reasonably consistent with the observable universe and its innate mechanism. The words we use to describe that may be the only access future civilisations have to our language and its application in a broader sense.

In that way poetry and metaphorical language will likely be the first meaning to be lost. Mathematics and formal language the last, assuming there isn't a Copernican revolution in our understanding of the the universe in the meantime that alienates former Thought.

So, sounds like you have to pick your side, plant your flag and fight for your cause. Agree? or do you see a less binary more nuanced range of choices? — universeness

My flag is planted firmly in the middle of the democracy-tyranny spectrum. As I believe not everyone is equal in intention (moral) nor knowledge (education).ideally they ought to be but practically they are led astray by personal preference.

On paper it's pretty clear cut. Binary. That generally democracy trumps tyranny. It is almost always the healthier choice.

However, in a more nuanced sense, I don't think tyrannical leaders/dictators are automatically malign/evil.

I do think it takes a certain set of attributes to be a "Good Dictator" that are generally not common and not usually associated with dictatorship.

For example, exceptional wisdom, insight, reasoning, tolerance and patient contemplation plus an innate core desire to provide for and care for all subjects. To uphold the highest degree of of ethical imperative possible.

If a dictator is open to criticism, listening and taking on board their subjects qualms/ concerns, can accurately identify their own shortcomings and implement corrective action, they're much less likely to be malicious and cause systemic harm.

Easier said than done. As a singular person with inherent bias, prejudice etc. Any of which is their downfall.

However a "Good Dictator" differs little from those who are voted/appointed into power through likeability and promise - mirroring the democratic process with an established and uncensored journalistic review, open public critique and acceptance of resignation if they f*ck up big time.

This is why benign dictators and democratically elected presidents/leaders are virtually the same for all intents and purposes. And this the lines between tyranny and democracy become blurred.

No one is perfect, so a perfect dictator is impossible and never immune to criticism, except for the universe itself - which is an entity that dictates the laws and contraints of physics, chemistry and biology, as well as evolution that determine outright what we are capable/permitted to achieve.

Hence the reasoning behind many that God is the ultimate benign dictator. Enforcing determined law in our becoming, but our becoming being ever more open to free will (as conscious agents). Non interference but fundamentally restrictive in setup. A duality.

I hope that clarifies my position on the subject. I think balance is always in-between opposites. Progress comes from being equal part tolerable/conformative and revolutionary/innovative. Look this is how things are (pragmaticism) but here is what could be (idealism).

identity is strongly tied to behavior or innate characteristics. Identity is determined by parameters - that which defines.

A dictator is identified by their sole dictation of the status quo. A charitable person is identified by their servitude of the impoverished and "greater good" according to them.

A master/genius painter is identified by collective opinion, popularity or notierty of their work and its impact on the sphere of art, creativity, authenticity, muse and inspiration - whether one becomes an entrepreneur of a new art movement or is lost in the static white noise of mediocrity.

Celebrities are identified by their association to how "seen" they are - how influential their opinions, views, talents and contributions are recognised by the general population.

We are free in one sense to identify however we wish. That is our privacy of mind. But if our behaviour (the outcome from our perceived self identity) doesn't match the common definition - few are likely to believe us.

But the acceptance/tolerance or credence of an identity is judged by law, reasoning, culture and ethics.

If I want to identify as a criminal, many will be opposed to it. It doesn't mean I can't. It just means the identity will be met with majority opinion and whatever backlash and sanction that comes with that. If I want to identify as suicidal, again many will exert opposing effort to prevent me from enshrining the definition or convincing others of embracing it for themselves.

People can be proponents for or against any identity based on their personal assumptions of the definition. But usually it is based on whether it sits right or wrong within their personal moral compass.

The law in a strong and educated democracy reflects the collective moral conscience. That's why dictators must erode democracy and the legal system with convincing but untrue propaganda if they are to last any length in power.

Science on the other hand deals with how we all identify. What binds us as products of physics, chemistry and biology. It focuses on commonality and objective consistency that applies across the board.

Democracy starts from a system of total tyranny. The change to the former is called revolution.

Tyranny starts in a system of total democracy. The change to the former is called fascism.

It's a spectrum with the two concepts serving as opposite poles. Opposing forces. Self interest vs. Collective interest.

The variables inbetween are the quality of information spread amongst a society - the ratio of propaganda, fear, and intimidation to honest education, discourse and formal/systematic voting.

Truth verses deceit. Democracy says everyone is equal and that normative distributions know best. Autocracy says I'm the most powerful and everyone most bow to my whims as I know best.

They're also mutual existents, as they both require the other in which to oppose, be contrasted to and manifest in a dynamic.

my issue would be that if conservation of energy rings true, there is finitude to the substance of existence - both in potency/ rate of reaction as well as quantity (as energy is equivalent to matter).

Equations don't deal with infinities, they deal with ratios of discrete entities. You cannot have an "equals/=" in an infinite system. Only a discrete/finite one.

I could be on board with change or the "quality of a system" being infinite as energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore time/action/doing is eternal. But as for quantity (being) , I don't think it is infinite.

If the material was infinite, there'd be no need for change, as we could just have a physics in which matter is continuously added to the system in a stable way where change doesn't occur.

There is an issue with this claim that can be labeled the point-of-contact Venn diagram problem — ucarr

Point-of-contact precludes parallelism and thus all relationships assume positive values of sameness between inter-related things. — ucarr

This sort of reminds me of the trinity.



It's a Venn diagram in disguise. Due to the "is not" - exclusion zones and "is" - the overlap

I'm also having similar problems with Pr(E). Since we know so little about aliens and the odds of abiogenesis, I can't justify anything for Pr(E) other than .5. — RogueAI

The odds of abiogenesis occurring are 1. Because here we are talking about it lol.

As for the odds of abiogenesis occurring multiple times? A little bit trickier. We could assume our planet and its conditions are an extremely rare phenomenon.

However, sun's are extremely common. In the trillions. 400 billion alone in our own galaxy. Solar systems are almost just as common if not as. Let's say 100 trillion for arguments sake.

Then if we take earth to be in a goldilocks zone that's not too close not too far. And that is around 1-1.5 astronomical units, the entire solar system being around 40 Au thats about 3% of the span of a basic solar system give or take thats ripe for life "as we know it".

So out of trillions we can cut it down by a factor of 97% which is 3 trillion.

2 of the four solid planets in our system have magnetic fields. If that runs true in general that's 50% and if they have magnetic fields they're likely to have both liquid water and an atmosphere.

That's 1.5 trillion planets.

Other variables need to be considered but as you can see, even with Conservative estimates the basic conditions for life appear to be pretty common given the massive quantities involved.

If life is a natural progression of the laws of physics and some probabilities of them interacting in the right way. Then abiogensis is almost a certainty.

If life was created by a creator. Which seems to have an obsession with just earth out of all of the universe, then multiple life sustaining planets is unlikely.

There is a good portion of coercion and conformance in meritocracy — Ansiktsburk

That is true. Your merit is judged by others, thus you are coerced by convention to appeal or conform to the majority, ideally all.

Thats what happens when a guy with working class roots becomes God. — Ansiktsburk

So from what I understand, you would correct the biases and prejudices that have been in place until now? Reform the system in an equilibrium where wealth is replaced by merit?

I like this. Those who show the most capability/promise to provide for all humanity ought to be empowered to do so, regardless of background.

But doesn't empowering someone on merit naturally lead to disequilibrium? To anyone who argues against them do you merely say "shhhh" or do you entertain their qualms?

give myself the means to remain the most powerful even after my time as God is over. — Captain Homicide

Wouldnt that mean you are still ultimately God? If your potency overcomes all challenge?

, I would choose to offer the world love and peace as I slipped into obscurity because I am all about helping others. My humility and compassion for others knows no bounds. — Hanover

That's a mighty and dutiful stance. One I respect very much. Bravo.

I so thought this was going to go in a different direction. — Hanover

Haha. Well that is the second option. That you would be so attractive and lovable that you may have anyone at any time you wish. Maybe even the goddess herself, unimaginable beauty, sensuality and care. Joy, peace and lust incarnate.

Opting for the second, you would be pure sex/love appeal. It is noble for sure to deny it to enable others. Is it fair to have that responsibility? Not so sure.

However, having opted for the first option, would you not feel lonely having sacrificed any chance at your participation in the love/peace dynamic?

Wouldnt you long to be seen, acknowledged, validated, loved yourself? It's a lonesome existence being the cohesion of the system. The invisible "bringer togetherer."

Observing the fruit if everything you are, the love of others for one another. It would be hard to not grow jealous, or allow one's own desire to seep in. To long for what you offer, for yourself.

Would the knowledge of being ultimate providence suffice? That is to say would the choice satisfy you in the long run or might you find yourself eons down the line resentful of being imbued with such powers, tired of not having love of your own? An isolated entity.

Why wouldnt you deserve it for yourself any more or less than your subjects?

Is the greater good enough? Would you be truly at peace with the decision even if you knew it was the right thing to do.

That's a great addition to the thread. I also agree. I think self contemplation and interaction with others stabilises one another. They require balance.

At its extreme, living as a recluse and thinking only to yourself, slowly eroding your conventions and societal reality, shaping what you want to make of it may potentially lead to all sorts of strange fantasy and mystic ramblings.

At the same time believing too much in the news, media, politics and what other people think or say can be very disenchanting and disempower you from thinking freely for yourself. Rendering you very skeptical and often pessimistic too.

So I think tarot, as well as other devices of introspection are useful in a limited capacity just to add a splash of wonder, mystery and perplexity to life, in the same way maybe that meditations or prayers offer reflections of one's desires and current state of affairs.

literally an "All or nothing" question.
All acting, no being or all being no acting. The overlooked backdrop or center stage.

Eros (also Cupid) is the little boy. Aphrodite (also Venus) is the goddess of love. She sends him to shoot people with his little arrow to make them fall in passionate [erotic] love with some specified other person. — Vera Mont

Cupid is Roman. Eros is Greek. — Bitter Crank

Apologies for my inaccuracies guys. My bad haha. It was somewhat of an impulsive spontaneous musing that I found intriguing. A guess I should have looked up a few definitions first to clear up the post of impurities. Lazy work lol.

However thanks for going along with it all the same. Does this post serve an ethical dilemma? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In either case I've found your considerations and choices interesting.

It's worth noting that because democracy is based on majority vote, it does not neccesarily attend nor reflect the needs or marginalised groups, minorities.

Minorities therefore in voting likelynwoukd not get their say acknowledged unless their concerns are considered by all who are voting. An exercise on informing, due publication, thorough journalism.

What draws one to philosophy?
— Benj96
"Wonder" did it for the ancients, "faith" did it for medievals, but for us I think despair – intractable, infinite, perplexity – is the draw. (NB: Zapffe-Camus name it the absurd.) — 180 Proof

Wow I really like that. It does seem that the world is in an explosion of information at the moment. With the advent of highly sophisticated communications - near speed of light exchange of information all over the world via fiber optic Internet cables and satellite, new forms of socialising and science propagated not only by basic hypothesis but algorithms that are story ahead - indexing things like protein structures and findings that woukd have taken a person millenia to decode.

As well as the highest levels of average education that humanity has ever seen to date.

However, every milestone comes with its drawbacks. We also have more misinformation than ever before, as well as the ability to becine polarised by selective education.

Knowledge is abounding and being diluted simultaneously.

I suspect most gods wouldn't even remain around. A great deal of gods would simply leave out of boredom, assuming they had the capacity to feel it. Most won't even interact the way humans do. I think most would be solitary and occupy different regions of the universe or exist outside of it entirely creating their own. — Cobra

This sounds like an analogy for exactly what humans do anyways. Leave when they're bored, argue if they're narcisstic, choose introversion over extroversion sometimes, or create their own "delusional" or "highly eccentric" sense of reality through intense denial of the status quo/convention/norms.

I think if everyone was elevated to god like power, nothing would change. Just as if the universe expands at the same rate everywhere, nothing gets larger relative to anything else.

Because "Power" is a dynamic between the a). most powerful and B). the powerless. Power only has power if someone else doesn't have it.

So elevating everyone to god status, giving them all the ability to float, shapeshift, be immortal, etc. If everyone has these powers, sure the dynamic of physics and chemistry and biology would certainly be different, self identity would be different momentarily (if we are to ever forget what it was like to be human), but all in all interactions between gods would be much the same as if they had always remained human.

If everything changes equally for everyone, then nothing changes.

erase poverty — Ansiktsburk

Would you have to erase money and wealth also then? As the whole system is based on an object of value that can be hoarded/accrued. You cannot have wealth without poverty, its what gives value to money (driven by fear/survival and competition).

Would we go back to a state of doing things for others not for money but out of compassion? Or love for our work.

severe pain at lying for own profit. — Ansiktsburk

If severe pain occurs for lying in order to profit, but you've already abolished the monetary system above, then how could they profit? Money would have no value in a system where you can never be poor and can just stop, relax, be unproductive - as you know your home, food and water will be taken care of, why work? And why capitalise?

Not killing all happiness by striving for certainty, arguing, logic and all that kind of meticulous bs. — Ansiktsburk

So if everyone who was quote clever is induced to not seek out certainty, concrete facts and logic, what would happen to the cold, meticulous, sterile ans objective nature of science? Would you have a world where science is dead. Anyone who tries to do it just becomes super fun and "oh whatever anyways" about it.

I like the premise of your ideas. They sound noble and good willed in theory. However I think the outcomes in practice could be pretty disastrous if not even contradictory.

"Enforce meritocracy" sounds like a contradiction of terms. As does "induce embracing".
It sounds like "totalitarian/autocratic free will" which don't seem to go hand in hand.

Essentially, in summary, enslaved to doing right by others (merit) and forced/induced to only think in fun ways. Totally controlled in essence. No free will to be bad, selfish, or boring and thus no meaning to their opposites - good, selflessness and fun.

To engage in the process of learning, I guess. — Mikie

Sometimes on the forum I find myself in a process of unlearning. Old habits die hard but they can die all the same.

I think attaining accurate knowledge is about simulataneously learning (accepting knew concepts) and unlearning (rejecting previously held beliefs that from this new reference point seem naive or absentmindedly conditioned).

But threads like yours here, is what makes me come here. And I love reading the answers. — Ansiktsburk

Well I'm glad I could offer something of interest to you and same, I really enjoy the answers, they place me in reference/context to others. As I compare what I think to what they think and wonder as to the cause of the differences. Where they come from, what they might mean, what insights can they offer?

That way I learn both about myself and about them.

But not necessarily you, and not necessarily now, and not necessarily relating to the question you want answered. — Vera Mont

No, not neccesarily me, anyone can engage with them. And yes not neccesarily now, as they can be played at any time, and yes not neccesarily answering the question I had in mind, as often in interpreting them, one is lead to new or novel combinations of thought, new points or reference or forms of framing something that may decidedly make the orignal question more redundant, instead revealing new insights into aspects of experience you had not considered to be relevant.
That's a pro-tarot opinion.

An anti-tarot opinion would be, if they don't intrinsically refer to you, and the time aspect is irrelevant, and they don't directly answer a particular question, then they're truly meaningless. As there is no grounds for anything objective or tangible meaning when you remove yourself, a time stamp or any particular motive.

In essence the debate is actually sort of one regarding determinism verses free disguised as "Do tarot cards have any inherent meaningful use".

If one is deterministic, whatever tarot cards one pulls at a specific time, place and question/desire in mind, were always going to be that exact combination and so a determinist could argue that they do apply to the situation because the situation is determined. Therefore they can have meaning about what was determined, what is determined, and what will be surely be determined ahead of you.

If one is non-determinist, what is drawn from the deck is pure random chance, as is the idea to play them, and the questions one applies, all just probabilities and flights of pointless fancy. In that case the cards have no relevance to anything. And you are left to either come up with your own imagined meaning, or consider the game worthless and never bother with it again as it offers nothing valuable.

Trying to argue from a spiritual perspective against these assumptions has felt futile to me over the years because my interlocutors and I are essentially speaking different languages, or even using different forms of communication; it's hand signals versus morse code. — Noble Dust

If I'm honest Noble Dust I have had the same sort of experience as you have described. It can be very demoralising. Like we are both speaking some form of alien gibberish at one another which is wholly unreconcible.

But I discovered that this is the fundamental nature of "belief". If you believe something, you can see it, entertain it, understand it, rationalise it, and try to explain it.

If someone holds the opposite belief, it will most definitely fall on deaf ears. Because the premise (the accepted belief) dictates/restricts the means in which to define it, or in other words the scope of possibilities available to explain it to another.

Without restriction there would be no contradiction between opposing beliefs. The opposition defines strictly the domain of each side.

It's like another example where I (someone who has fallen in love in the past) attempted to explain the existence or sensation of romantic "love" to a dear friend who had never experienced it yet.
They were sure it didn't exist. Whilst I was positive that it did. But you can't explain something to someone if they have no experience of it.

It's like describing the color red to a colourblind person. They will simply "not get it".

The reconciliation at the end is the fact that, new experiences open the mind to new beliefs. And whilst one may not be able to describe their belief to another, perhaps they will come to understand it on their own accord, with time.

I agree in one sense and disagree by the other.

Ultimately, the chance of picking up any given combination is entirely down to probability and factorials. A Mathematical function. Therefore we can easily reason that the cards drawn in any instance are meaningless and just for fun.

Just as if we have a bag M&Ms the chance of drawing 3 yellows, 2 greens and a 1 red are a mathematical probability that can be calculated from the total sum of possibilities.

However, M&Ms and tarot cards have a distinct and important difference.

Tarot cards have an assigned meaning unlike the mere colours of M&Ms.
And that meaning is not a specific, superficial or a particular one, but rather a deep, resonant, broad, interconnected and overlapping fundamental one, generally applicable to most contexts.

The chances of picking something specific in a set of 20 distinct and unrelated things, is 1 in 20. A 5% chance.

The chances of picking up something fundamental, in a set of 20 fundamentals, is 1, 100% chance. A certainty. Because if they are all "fundamental" , their significance pertains to the same thing.

Its like having 20 cards that all pertain to a toothbrush. One card says: it is used to clean your mouth with repetitive movements, another says it has bristles, a head and a handgrip, the other says it is made by colgate and found on the bathroom sink, and another indicates that it is used daily where toothpaste is applied to the end.

In this case, what are the chances of picking up a card that describes the fundamental - a toothbrush? 100% chance right? It may be interpreted differently in isolation - mouthwash, floss, etc. But the collective stands for one concept.

I believe tarot cards do the same. In this way perhaps random chance is compensated for, because all you could ever draw is a card that is relevant to some principle embodied by all the components - every card pertaining to one facet of the same thing.

How can a question be wrong? — bert1

"Why does everyone hate me?" "Why do the rich always get to be happy and not struggle?" "How well did my excellent, perfect example clarify things for you?"

Questions are only as good as the premises they're based on. If a premise is biased (like "all rich people are happy"), the questions that arise will be equally biased.

So some questions are better than others.

Whilst we should be allowed to ask anything at all in theory, not all questions hold the same relevance or lead to useful answers. The question-answer complex has a certain degree of quality.

By asking a question you inadvertently identify your biased reasoning to others.

If someone says you "asked the wrong question" either A). They are biased, and consider your genuine, well thought out and measured question as absurd or B) you asked a silly question in light of their more informed, higher level of understanding and knowledge.

In either case, it can be clarified through patience, tolerance and good reasoning through discussion.

"Why is the sky solid?" is an absurd question as it demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the properties/qualities of the sky.

"Why is the sky blue" on the other hand is a better question as it aligns with collective perception.

An even better question again is "why does the sky appear blue?" because in this case the questioner has enough knowledge to know that the sky isn't in fact blue yet isn't quite sure as to the exact mechanism/physics behind that.

So in essence, questions are based on prior knowledge. The more accurate the prior knowledge, the better the question that can be asked.

Never underestimate a starling. — Jamal

Haha from now I will observe them with a new found suspicion of their true intentions :P

came here for the same reasons as everyone else, but my interest in philosophy has waned. I'm more interested in consciousness and a spiritual path these days, so I tend to keep my mouth shut — Noble Dust

I'm also interested in these topics. And have opened many a thread based on them. Why see philosophy as a separate domain to those enquiries? Consciousness and so ritual have their place in thr realm of philosophical enquiry just as much as materialism, objectivity and the concrete.

An all-consuming lust for power. — Jamal

Haha. With your little thumbnail of a starling (I think), it makes it all the more entertaining a comment.

I'm imagining a small birds quest for world domination.

there are many factors in peoples lives that could lead to their assessment of their longevity. Upbringing, theology, family illness, desires etc. — Andrew4Handel

Absolutely. I agree. There are both internal and external influences at play in ones belief as to when they may meet their end.

Ultimately we cannot know, the only control we have is that offered by best medical practice to sustain health.

Eat a balanced diet, exercise regularly, get enough sleep, listen to the doctor, avoid drugs and excessive sunshine, mitigate stress, maintain strong social relationships and trustworthy dependencies.

Easier said than done. It's a total juggling act.

God was going to return to earth as Jesus Christ and The Saints would randomly float up into heaven. — Andrew4Handel

Out of curiosity, supposing the second coming was imminent and you knew of such, what would you do? Would you splash out, go wild, enjoy the pleasures of life while you could, or would you commit yourself to a pious, humble life correcting whatever wrongs you've done in preparation for judgement?

Interesting and informative. Perhaps the body tells the mind when it's time to give up its naive and inconsiderate dispositions.

In that case it is not so much a case that we neccesarily want to reign ourselves in but rather that we are forced to by the natural slowing down, the increasing inefficiency of the body.

We are at the mercy of our gradually failing systems.

Youth is well compensated. A large margin for error and a grand tolerance for abuse and neglect. Old age is no such thing. Even the slightest corporeal inconvenience has a lasting reprimand.

A slow but inevitable reeling in of the unencumbered mind, until the corpus dictates the show.

There may be a kind of fatalism involved — Vera Mont

Yes I agree Vera.

I did feel that way for a few years in my 20's. I — Vera Mont

I can't deny I also had a period like this. When the going is truly good why would one ever consider that it couldn't continue to be the case. In ones 20s death is but a distant abstraction, too far down the line to consider seriously.

For me it was a close call, an near encounter with death that shook me up and forced me to reckon with my ultimate mortality. I'm much more cautious in lieu of that.

slight correction to the human body fact (which is very interesting, isn't it?) is that our neurons don't get replaced. I wonder if replacing them would result in us "feeling" any different, within our own bodies? I — tomatohorse

However I'm referring to atoms not neurons. Yes you're correct the neurons don't replicate, they stay as is for life, that isn't to say the atoms that make them up are not removed and replaced.

This simply means that neuronal structure is highly preserved despite repairs and replacement of its compoments.

For example, cholesterol and lipids from a neurons membrane become damaged by oxidation and get drawn into the cell for destruction and recycling. New fats and cholesterol are simultaneously transported out to the membrane to maintain continuity.

The neuron does not reproduce like other cells of the body but that isn't to say their composition is static.

The body creates structures which are subject to wear and tear. Some tissues combat this by cell division and replacement of whole units. In other tissues, the cells are not replaced, but their composition is dynamic, when it wears down individual pieces are created to take over in their place, sustaining the cell without reproduction.

is worth pointing out that our bodies also have their parts replaced over time.

It has been calculated that after 8 years, due to breakdown and turnover, repair, there are none of the same atoms composing out body as there were at beginning of the 8 year period. The slowest to be replaced are the calcium and phosphate in our bones.

However our self identity, memories and experiences outlast that 8 year mark. Its not like we are all only ever 8 years old at any given time. There is continuity of self despite being composed of new material. We can recall times before that.

Therefore even though nothing about us is materially the same after 8 years we can assume to be the same person with continuous chronologic identity.

The ship is the same. It may have had its parts replaced. But the object, the whole ship with its holistic design, function and behaviour remains the same.

It would be a different case if the ship was redesigned during the replacment, if it had rooms added, masts or sails removed, the Hull made thicker or higher, the deck expanded or reduced in meters squared. These things would impact the whole ships performance and "feel" to sail - its hydrodynamics, its aerodynamics, its weight and ballast, the aesthetic, the function.

It's analogous to a heap of sand. If you replace one grain every second until the heap (of 100,000 grains) is fully replaced after 100,000 seconds, is it still a heap of sand with the same character, properties and behaviour? I would say yes. So we can still identify it as the same heap.

Yes I agree.

Imaginary friends and projecting personhood onto inanimate objects is an integral phase of child development. It's actually considered a red flag if children don't go through this phase of imaginary friends. A sign of autism or neuroatypical cognition.

It's believed that it is the social brains healthy development, exercising itself, practicing social interaction in a controlled setting. Preparing itself for real social encounters.

It makes a lot of sense actually, as the ability to socialise is the natural next step to language acquisition, the ability to self express.

Children imbue self into their dearest toys or teddies so they can converse, think aloud as it were and roleplay.

Society is about roleplay in essence. Everyone has a part to play. Children recognise this through the exercise of having an invisible or inanimate best friend. A parent need not be concerned as it demonstrates their child has social intelligence, an invaluable skill.

I would give everyone else god powers and then watch us all fight to the death in all the chaos — Cobra

Oh the irony. Because I feel humanity is as close to a "God" as any animal has ever come to evolutionarily. We wield the power of the atomic bomb, unfathomable knowledge in every discipline imaginable, stored in warehouse upon warehouse of servers around the globe, able to survive essentially all but the most hostile environments on earth. And soon to extend that to space itself.

We are everywhere on earth, omnipresent - all 8 billions of us, if not geographically than certainly in cyberspace. We are arguably the most successful of all of mother nature's species, able to offset our own genetic flaws through medicine, sustain ourselves longer and longer with every century that passes. Overcoming hurdles in every domain.

My question to you would be, if knowing humans are fundamentally competitive and can be reduced to mere survival at all costs, why give them each God like power? Would you enjoy observing the chaos and fight to the death?

And if we all had the same power wouldnt we be truly equal? Unlike the current state of affairs where the wealthy and political have much more authority and power than the impoverished, who can barely survive.

At 85 not feeling bad means happy — jgill

Haha fair enough. And long may it last :) Health and staying active/able is everything really at the end of the day.

Chronic pain I think is perhaps the most debilitating thing, a lot else is tolerable but pain is a toughy.

Yes I am.

But perhaps "Happy" isn't the exact term I'd use depending on what you mean by it.
For me "content" is a better one because for me:. "Happy" is a brief temporary emotion. Situational and transient.

"Contentment" on the other hand is a long standing general positive mood, sense of well-being, peace and resilience.

I say resilience because bad shit happens regularly, and you may feel temporarily frustrated, unsettled or upset. That doesn't mean you aren't generally content. As "unhappy" is also a short term brief emotion.

Sad to happy is as contentment is to depression/hopelessness.

Its a matter of duration.

This thinking is so shallow it sinks below wrong. — jgill

Well then enlighten me. Please elaborate.

It is interesting that you see creativity in connection with abstraction because I have always seen it as being about the breaking free from abstractions, especially in the way in which experience often challenges the nature of theory. — Jack Cummins

I see your point here. Very much so. I understand that theory is technically abstract in the sense that it is not yet established or agreed upon as logical, sterile, simple and concrete fact. Facts being usually devoid of creativity.

Except perhaps the "fact that creativity exists and is useful."

However, theories are usually well defined. They tend to be attempts to tie loose ends together in a flow of reason. And are thus specific and do not deviate. So it can be equally argued that theory is not creative based on its sole aspiration to be taken as verbatim, as fact.

Copernicus' theory that the Earth actually revolves around the sun in the histórical context of mysticism and religion, can be seen as an abstraction reaching out far beyond the purview of the "rational" - what is assumed to be true, the status quo, dictated by the church. Therfore it was considered absurd, heresy.

Now of course it is a basic fact that lacks creativity. It's logical. It's concrete (through demonstration and experiment, and it's ability to predict things much better than a terrestrial-centric solar system would.

Therefore, it is my opinion that there is a playful dynamic between creativity/imagination, the abstract (a novel proposition) and the paradigm of "established" facts, of best knowledge to date.

What was once abstract, considered far fetched and the realm of pure imaginary indulgence, is now fact.

What was once fact, is now absurd, the realm of creativity and far-fetchedness - like flat earthers.

for me "creativity" is taking the path less trodden.

Maths and formal logic are exemplars of disciplines that don't afford much importance to creativity. They are very A to B.

On the other hand, poetry, riddles, parables and figurative language that may on the surface say "one thing literally" but beg to be interpreted outside of that restrictive field, are perfect examples of creativity.

Creativity is for this reason often associated with abstraction. Concreteness is contrarily objective in nature.

While firm logic/reason argues for an occams razor type approach. Cut out the middle man. Speak plainly Dear, creativity butts its head and says "why go straight from A to B when you can meander through C-Z on your way?

I m glad you are glad.Though supposing there is God indeed,his way of "thinking" is way more irrational than mine. — dimosthenis9

Well we are "negentropic" by definition.That is to say "Life" goes against the increasing entropy flow of the universe, the chaos, the disorder.

We as living things are very much rational, orderly, self controlled, self organizing and self regulated beings.

When our bodies skew off into irrationality and chaos we get ill and die and are no longer orderly living systems.

And I suspect the same is for our mind and thoughts. When they get severely irrational we end up either harming ourselves or others. As irrationality/chaos naturally erodes order/rationality.

So to circle back to the quote. I think if there is a God, his (or her - who knows) way of thinking is for sure both rational - creative, and irrational - destructive. You cannot have one without the other.

An omnigod by definition cannot have any questions, so I cannot perceive a purpose or need for it to exist.
1d — universeness

Wouldn't "the questioned" have to exist for us to question it?
If the universe = "All information", sure it may not be able to ask questions, but from it emerged things that can - us.

So the universes laws and principles contained the information neccesary to generate a conscious questioner within it.

We can and build the "All knowledge" from the "all information". In the sense that knowledge differs from information in that it is information ordered/structured and classified in a logical rationally associated way within the mind of a consciously aware being.

In essence, wouldnt an omnigod as the true reality, the collective sphere of answers, have a purpose - to be the object of observation and questioning by sentience that doesn't yet have all the answers or the whole truth. But can question, and rationalise and experiment with answers.