Not sure. But since nature is so cruel and so poorly designed, I'd probably try to fix it and remove the diseases and design flaws and weaknesses and predatory behaviours which abound in this current wonky, barbaric 'creation'. — Tom Storm

Yes I think anyone with good intentions would try to un-tangle the shit from the good stuff and minimise the barbarism. However, it being your creation, how might you feel about the bad things that have transpired? Would you feel culpable or would you feel just knowing that you can change it or start over at a moments notice?

That you are perhaps trialling an experiment that didn't work out as you imagined. Or would you believe that the bad is neccesary as an opposite for good. That it is required for contrast and to give perspective and meaning?

Sure, that sounds even better.

In my earlier comment I added that I would make a failsafe that would default the world back to how it was before I became God if the majority of people wanted it to be so. I think that that would make things less scary. — ToothyMaw

Oooh. Yes I agree a failsafe is a good thing to have in place. I mean as God I'm sure you could undo anything, reverse time to any point. So you could rest assured that any mistake you make you can simple rewind and restart.
Wipe the slate clean as it were.

This whole thing makes me uncomfortable, but yeah, sure. — ToothyMaw

For sure haha. For me when I first heard the question I felt the exact same way. I think it's natural to feel that way don't worry.

Nothing. Why the people should expect something from me for being God? — javi2541997

Perhaps they ought not to? I mean you as "God" in this hypothetical have full reign and authority over how to be. As a God ought to.

You choose how to be. If you want to be non-interfering and simply observing that's your perogative. Who are we - any mere human, to question your authority?

How do you think you would feel watching over your creation in the background, unseen, unknown? Would you ever be tempted to come to earth? Or would you prefer to be interpreted indirectly? Mysteriously.

Okay, I'll take this seriously. I would allow anyone who no longer wants to suffer (perhaps in a specific way) to elect to no longer suffer, whatever that would entail. That is the main thing I would do. — ToothyMaw

A noble thing I would say. That people may always have the ability to quench suffering whenever it becomes overwhelming. Would this mean the ability to medicate themselves? Or to seek therapy or support or to perhaps end their life if they truly see no other way out?

It was a joke. I wouldn't do that. — ToothyMaw

Ah okay I overlooked the joke my apologies. So you would allow them to be able to turn life/living into a blissful/paradise type existence if they wished to? They wouldn't have to wait for an afterlife to enjoy something super fulfilling and cool?


.

Whatever each individual person would want. I could easily determine what each would want with omniscience. I would actually replicate each person and then ask their replicas what they would want, because it would be too creepy to just create new realities for people based on mind-reading. — ToothyMaw

Hmm okay I'm following. Perhaps instead of replicating them might I suggest you could merely choose not to know what they're thinking and ask them what they think? As that would be entirely in your power, to bestow them with privacy of mind.

I think this is a prudent thing to do. They might be scared of you/at your entire mercy if they think you can read their mind at will. At least if given the choice to be asked and speak their unique thoughts, they would have autonomy as to what they wish to happen to them.

But it sounds like you would be in favour of them having their own destiny and choice. Which I think is a lovely thing to do.

I would unbecome God as quickly as I could, then, as I have no desire to be (a) God. — ToothyMaw

Haha, how amusing! :P yes I think being God would be the greatest of responsibilities one could ever have. It's scary to wield such potency. Not many people would actually envy the position I imagine.

I for one think you're doing a good job with the thought experiment so far. You seem quite considerate and level headed. If you wish to continue Im curious to see how it evolves. Are you?

Seriously though, I have no idea. — ToothyMaw

I understand totally. It is a thought of seismic proportions, not one to consider lightly certainly. To be responsible for everything, to be some original cause for all effects. I can't imagine how many lifetimes it might take to consider everything before being sure of the idea.

First, I would extend my time as God until I no longer wanted to be God. — ToothyMaw

Haha wouldnt that be all times in existence, unless (desiring not to be god any longer) you were to unbecome god by appointing another in your place?

Then I would peer inside 180 Proof's head to see if he actually thinks the way he writes. — ToothyMaw

Haha fair lol. So you as god would have a fascination with 180 Proofs mind? I imagine he would be quite honored to get such selective attention.

And then I would make a cool afterlife for everyone in which they could leave whenever they want. — ToothyMaw

Where would they leave to? Living again? Or some purgatory of total non-awareness and oblivion. Would some memory wiping be in order here?

But everyone must still live out a shitty life on Earth first, so they can appreciate just how cool the afterlife I made for everyone is.
7m — ToothyMaw

Ah interesting indeed. You would give them the contrast to a super cool afterlife, a paradise of sorts, so they could appreciate it by contrast through the imperfections of living? Seems clever and rational.

Pray tell, would you exist as the universe in its entirety? Or would you manifest as a person in the flesh so you could interact with living existents?

As someone who lost religious faith some time ago, I wondered about any secular songs about 'hope' and if they could be seen as a kind of 'prayer'. How spiritual is the secular?
The lyrics are about hope, love and peace: — Amity

For me, hope is what remains at the end, when all previous reason has lost its vigour, its value, its authority. A pure desire to find meanings once lost.

As hope is reason enough in itself to continue. Hope for hopes sake, self perpetuating and self proving, self evident without any external requirements.

Some might say having hope in a hopeless place is the greatest of all irrationalities, a pointless, fruitless effort, that one ought to give up hope, but if its all they have left what would they have after that? Nothing. Non existence. Submittal to death. Oblivion.

Where better to re-examine and define "the rational, the multiplicity of reasons," then from outside its dominion, from that very place of pure belief, pure faith and optimism and determinism and imagination for the future - an innate power/instinct that only hope truly offers.

Hope is the ultimate fuel of survival and endurance. It is the poetry that underpins existence in a society built on best guesses, half truths, conflicting opinions and invalidations, but also beauty, imagination, innovation and progress.

The greatest truths are those that persist unperturbed - always exist through time. As they are the truest of true things. Constants. And hope I would imagine is a constant we ought not to undervalue, as losing it only brings forth utter despair.

...and which can explain the hypothesis of the big bang and the universe as we know it being a "bubble" in a pure energy field. Like, if infinite and there are infinite quantum possibilities that can occur in that infinite energy, it would eventually lead to the possibility of a bubble where energy fades out and then deflates back into pure energy. Since that pure energy "locally" fades and that energy is between singularities within its "bubble" (like black holes), it appears as matter, like gas crystalizing in the air. — Christoffer

Yes. That's a good explanation I enjoyed picturing it mentally. It runs in tandem with the underlying notion I have considered through several variations/ analogies of my own. It seems we are in some form of fundamental agreement here about the contraction and expansion of the universe and that interplay (material precipitation) between energy and time as it does.

In QFT, the universe contains 'interacting' fields. Every field permeates the entire universe, yes?
So does a 'photon'/field excitation really 'travel' at all?
Like a water wave or a mexican wave in a crowd of people. Each person just undulates in sequence order. Each person just stands up and sits down at the correct time. This gives the appearance of a moving wave. If a photon can appear at any point in space or time then perhaps it does not have to travel as it is already there and has been there since the big bang singularity. The speed of light would then be an observed constant of propagation through a universal field, but the 'photon' can arrive at any point in the universe instantly as a 'photon' has always existed at every point in the universe — universeness

I like this analogy a lot. Seems very intuitively logical and reasonable. My mind is chewing on it. Food for thought.

Question: If something is not true is it false? So if not A then B. Does this necessarily require "everything is A or B?" — Edmund

What is true to A is not true to B. What is true to B is not true to A. But the greater truth i would say is that A and B both exist (are true) but that truth is defined (limited/given strict parameters) by their individual perspective (assumptions).

Paradox, like argument, like contradiction, can only exist when two opposimg assumptions can be logically considered as true and battle one another for supremacy.

Positive and negative poles of any spectrum, any duo of opposites, any two faces of a coin, exist in direct contradiction of one another such that they cancel one another out.

0 can = 0, but 0 can also = - 1 + 1

There is nothing that disconnects us from the universe, fundamentally, other than our assumptions.

Some assumptions are easy, natural to assume because of how we exist as a body, how we sense an externality verses an internality.

As the body is discrete, particular, defined, and so everything in relative consideration to that can be assumed until questioned - time, space, different perspectives, different vantage points.

But underneath it all, we are made of the same singular stuff as all things are. Science claims it. Spirituality claims it too. We are in that sense like a structure emerging, for a finite time, from something we are no less a part of, like a wave which rises from an ocean, views the limited oceanscape visible from its peak, and then crashes down and disassembles back into the ocean itself.

The wave, and the ocean, are both water when all is said and done.

Consideration: absolutism is to relativity as soul is to body. This is proven perhaps by the fact that you can't find the absolute through the relative but you can find the relative through the absolute — Gregory

Exactly. Only the ends of a spectrum, the poles (absolutes) , can observe the middleground (relativism) but the middle cannot see the ends.

The same place as the term 'nothing,' and other meaningless words such as 'meaningless' or 'perfect' or 'god' or 'immaterial.' or 'square circle,' or 'moral capitalist.' — universeness

However, they are all existents in the universe because you used them, as many other do, and we all exist in the universe, as products of its possible state's of being.

They (these words and their meanings) are not outside of it (the universe) . Unless conscious beings that can hold such concepts have access to something extrinsic to the universe they inhabit.

"nothing" only has meaning "within" the universe as within the universe there is "something" - its opposite. True nothingness (without somethingness) is as impossible as light without darkness. True nothingness is incoherent from the bias of being something. As "nothingness" in the context of being "something" - is everything that it is not. Meaningless in respect to a biased assumption by an existent.

"meaningless" has meaning. Otherwise we could not use it as a word that holds any value/informativeness/meaning/comprehensibility. And all functional words have comprehension otherwise they would not be useful as words (a unit of communication).

Again "perfect" only has meaning in respect to the imperfect. If imperfection didn't exist then perfection would not exist. "God" is a heavily loaded term, meaning anything really depending on who you ask, but fundamentally it is that which one worships. And everyone worships something as of the utmost importance, everyone has something core that is more important than anything else - be it money, fame, power, beauty, knowledge, recognition, morality etc.

"immaterial" is that part of the universe that the material cannot define, cannot make discrete and apprehensible.

All these things no less exist. You can argue they don't, but that is just a singular opinion pretending to be a universal/ultimate one that no one can contest/apply logic to and argue.

Yet here I am, arguing it - Opposition to your current ultimate paradigm (most recent set of assumptions) as to what the reality of things are.

If you knew the ultimate reality, I would be happy to allow you to assume the role of the single most important, significant and revelationary person on earth, totally and unequivocally famous for your unanimous and comprehensive description of "all things". But seeing as I disagree with you and posit my own logic in direct contention with yours, you must either explain sufficiently why I am wrong or contend with the idea that your own beliefs are innacurate/incomplete/imperfect/biased/prejudiced.

So which is it? Are you prepared to declare yourself as all knowing or do you consider yourself as open to debate/further learning from others on the forum/further afield?

What are you defining, physically/materially, as your 'internal mind?
Your 'random imaginings,' would imo, be in the main, unimportant, yes. But we are able to, 'collapse the waveform' of our random imaginings, into a useful thought, on occasion. — universeness

Yes indeed. The waveform represents the possibilities between what you think/believe/have concepts for and what I do similarly, however all the while being unknown to one another. A sphere of potential argument, potential act. Potential consideration.

We only collapse the waveform when we communicate - that is to say when you observe me - hear my thoughts, observe/measure my articulations as discrete/finite représentations of my internal experience. In that way we are entangled by the transfer of information. When we withold information from one another we are not entangled and left to our own devices (our separate waveforms of possible thoughts/potential/imagination).

I would be unwilling to consider your imagination (waveform) as invalid, as non material and irrelavent, for that exact sphere of possibility is precisely where you take fresh ideas from to articulate to me in hopes to change/alter my perspective.

If I were to discard your imagination, I am discarding anything you can propose that is not already known. So no enlightenment, no change, no fresh air, is available for me to consider.

The waveform is creativity/ potential to be/ re-arrangement of previously known ideas to construct novelty.

The particle/particulate is that which you choose to explain your waveform - the words, discrete in meaning for each beholder. Your meaning and my meaning may be different so, it stands to reason that philosophy is very much about defining exactly what one means and minimising what another may infer through vaguery/difference in held meaning towards any given word/definition.

One of my fingers is currently pointing into space and I do so as time passes. I can therefore indicate/represent pointing at space and time by raising a finger and I can confirm verbally and by thought and by typing these words on TPF, that that is what I am doing. — universeness

Now how do you explain others passage of time? Their perception of it? A person in a coma for example who neither can point to space or time, and waking up many years from now has no recollection of the time that elapsed between their most recent memory and their waking state.

Can you say that your experience and their experience are both objective and unanimous? Or would there be conflict between your opinions of what has transpired?

Space and time are relative to who is aware of them. And the state of their awareness.

If there is an afterlife my initial guess would be as a shared mental realm where every soul would be dreamy — Michael McMahon

Yes I agree. I think if there is a true afterlife it is akin to some sort of great unveiling/revelation - a profound and all encompassing dramatic change in perspective, a regression to some fundamental "dreamy" immaterial state that puts ones life into direct relationship/full perspective - all things considered.

I can't pretend to know for certainty of the existence of an afterlife nor what it might be like, but what I do know for sure is the systems that constructed us (the laws, principles and rules) that birthed life in a seemingly dead universe will continue to prevail.

And that fundamentally, our matter - our substance, as well as the energy contained in its order and self regulation as a strictly controlled hierarchy of balances and interactions, the state that gives rise to living, breathing sentience, will continue, as it is a natural innate part of existence in the universe.

So I don't think all is lost when we die. We just change beyond the scope of comprehension of the living. Our individual identity is lost perhaps, but whatever collective identity that underlies it will be unperturbed, we continue to have our pieces ever involved in the cycles of the ecosystem, recycled, exchanged, renewed in many forms and varying levels of life and awareness.

When one dies, their personhood, their memories, rot away, are unlearned, decay, leaving whatever fundamental truth behind to continue in our personal identities absence.

Our essence, is the universe. We are as much part of it as a star, as a planet, as a galaxy, as the hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen that composes our living bodies as well as everything else: water, gases, rock, diamond.

When we die, we are still the universe, within the system , we have not exited it. We are here. But by what exact definition, what identity, we are here im not sure exactly.

We are just no longer static (a defined, stable, consistent living thing with identity), we are instead a rapidly transfiguring essence.

Some of them could have been married off at age 14 to an older man who wanted someone to do his laundry and cook for him, and back in the day rape and abuse of a wife were sanctioned by law. — Athena

Gross patriarchy and gender inequality at its finest :(

am struggling here, I do not know how to philosophically express the injustice of patriarchy and the value of matriarchy. — Athena

Oh I disagree. I think you're doing a very good job of explaining your qualms to the forum contributors. Philosophy is for everyone, it's a discussion, the minute we think it is a speciality, elite subject or something that requires some certificate or qualification then true organic philosophy does on that table.

And thank you for throwing me into this quandary by leaving me the argument against the ideal. — Athena

"An" ideal to be sure. Nobody knows exactly what ought to be the true ideal to pursue. Hence the existence of such forums no? To explore eachothers thoughts, experiences and personal input into the great argument so that we may gather the facts, beliefs and interactions neccesary to hopefully see the wood from the trees.

Yes and certainty is a very difficult thing to capture. Just when one things they have ultimate certainty someone throws a wrench in the cogs and we are left to consider the exceptions to such a case. I hope thanksgiving goes well for you and your family. Have a great celebration :)

The best use of that word is to indicate that which has no value, no importance, no significance — universeness

Well then my internal mind has no importance, value or significance to you. As the privacy of my inner thoughts must either not exist, or have no importance. But it certainly cannot be materially demonstrated as it is the sum of my entire internal experience - inaccesible and un-measurable by objective means.

So what say you of the mentalscapes of all people. Most of which have no physical existent to prove their private equivalent. Its not like all of my possible thoughts are automatically written and therefore empirically evident to others.

So in the case of ideas I haven't yet explained of mine, do they exist in the material, or are they immaterial - not accessible to others lest I explain them.

Energy, time and space are not immaterial. — universeness

Then point to them. As they are apparently material objects. Show me the object that is time, is space?

You might also suggest 'superposition,' where the same object can be in two places at once. — universeness

This is analogous to a waveform no? Potential to be in more than one place simultaneously.

Energy, time and space are not immaterial. This is reducing, as these kinds of discissions often do, to definitions. To me, immaterial is synonymous with supernatural and I think everything in the universe is natural. — universeness

If everything in the universe is natural where does the term "supernatural" come from? I think it's merely a term required to approach that which we do not understand.. "we" being existents in the universe. The term "supernatural" and whatever it pertains to is a product of thr universe.

My understanding is when an object approaches the speed of light from the point of view of an outside viewer the object contracts in the direction of the path?

If an object could actually reach the speed of light would the object become 2 dimensional from everyone else's perspective?

Is there any hypothetical way an object can travel in all directions at the same time? If that were so would it not be expanding? And if it were doing that at the speed of light would it not also be becoming 0 dimensional? — TiredThinker

You're right in that at the speed of light spatial dimension (distance) contracts infinitely. At the same time let's not forget that time dilates infinitely (the inverse). This is relativity proposed by Einstein.

So that in conclusion, at the speed of light, all distances and all times are simultaneous. A singularity. Therefore matter cannot exist. Only pure "potential" energy.

This is reinforced by physics understanding that photons (which travel at c - the speed of light) do not have matter.

Thus energy, time and space are negligible as energy (at c) is "the ability to do work", or in other words the ability to cause change.

But change can only occur in a temporal and spatial dimension. Ie. One not travelling at the speed of light.
Hence why energy travelling at the speed of light is only potential as potential requires no dimensions.

The effects of change/ability to do work (potential) can only be measured from the realm of matter - energy that is not travelling at the maximum speed and thus is subject to time and space and manifests as material substance. (e=mc2)

This means essentially that everything that is matter, is under the duress of spacetime and energy. When it is only potential energy, not "acted energy", these things do not exist. "Action requires the time to act and the space in which to act."

So one can imagine it as a spectrum. Between rates of reaction (time/distance).
When time and distance are negligible, rate is 0 (pure potential), when time passes and space exists as distance, rate is not negligible. Ie >0

In other words all judges are doomed to have some conflicts of interests simply by having a residual level of emotionality. Thus we are effectively multitasking in dealing with lots of harms where stress can be compounded. — Michael McMahon

Yes judges are human and thus have failings, they have not considered everything (omniscience). They are flawed just like anyone else. So when pressured to resolve a dilemma (like Jesus - a dilemma embodied), they tend to go with the most conservative decision, which is to assume he is criminal because half the population believes so - the non believers. He can easily be painted as an anarchist trying to disrupt the peace when in fact the sole reason he came to their attention was because good people tend to be oppressed by the violent (non good/intimidating/aggressive) behaviour of nastier people. And that true peace is not the same as silent oppression.

. So calling Jesus the Son of God might be a self-fulfilling prophecy in relation to your own sphere of the world. — Michael McMahon

Indeed. And self fulfilling prophecies do exist as outcomes based on a pure, unchangeable belief. For example if I'm absolutely sure I'm stupid and unable to study for an exam because of this, totally lacking self confidence, then I don't study because what's the point? I know I will fail. And then naturally, I do fail. For lack of study.

So I reinforce my suspicions as they were confirmed by the outcome.

In the same way jesus likely claimed he was god/close to God and this angered people a great deal, and him knowing this would anger/frustrate people, naturally orated the conclusion: saying he would be martyred (crucified) for his resounding belief. And when no one could argue with him because his beliefs were further proven by any action against him, people were ever more frustrated by his existence to the point that they had to get rid of him.

The minute they did of course they fulfilled his prophecy of martyrdom. And instilled the belief that indeed he could, supposedly inhumanly, see the future and was omniscient. He was after death legacied as god incarnate. Because people believed only a benevolent god would identify themselves and teach of themselves, knowing full well it would ultimately lead to their own annihilation and self-proving as god.

Only a true good god would know how they would die and also that it would be in the sole effort to help others. All they need rely on is the existence of people who cannot stand the fact that he had more power than them. Which is most reasonable that it can be taken pretty much as certainty. As the most selfish people do exist.

A selfless sacrifice was the only proof he required to concretise his belief in others. All he needed to do was tell the truth with pure reason and ethics (love for others) backing up his arguments, and simply wait until it be demonstrated through its opposite: delusion, hatred and resentment.

You have provided no compelling example of an existent immaterial, other than your attempt to label some currently, poorly understood, aspects of human consciousness as 'immaterial.' — universeness

What do you mean exactly by "compelling example" and "existent immaterial ?"

Is a "compelling example" for you in this sense "material evidence" of the immaterial? As that would by logical neccesity be a contradiction of terms.

And is your use of existence in "existent immaterial" pertaining to something material or something measurable? If existence means something material then again it is a conflict of terms. If it on the other hand means measurable, appreciable on an individual empirical basis (personal belief over communal fact) then the immaterial can indeed exist.

Immaterial things - like energy and time and space, can only be measured indirectly from the bias of material existence. By subtraction. By deductive reasoning.

But cannot be made material and objectively discrete by material things. For if everything is an object, where does time, energy and space go? The negative fields that contrast the nature of the material.

So, they cannot be proven directly, only relatively - in relativistic relationship to the material. As Einstein proposed.

They must exist as the means by which material is acted on (cause being immaterial) and effect (material outcome being well... material).

Secondly, if some things are the most common things in existence, others are less so, a bit rarer, then it stands to reason that one thing is the rarest existent in the universe.
If it is so rare and singular that it cannot be replicated in measurement by different people, can we say it exists?

Most people would say no. It doesn't exist. If its measurement is not consistent then we cannot make it objective and constant between observers.

But herein lies a problem. If the rarest end of the scale of existents doesn't exist, the removing of that end of the scale of existents merely makes the next thing the most rare in its place, and if you remove that the next thing now assumes the rarest quality. An infinite régression of skeptcisim until all you have left to reckon with is yourself. Whether you exist. As descartes did.

This seems extremely reductive, therefore its likely that the rarest thing that cannot be made discrete, objective, constant, consistent, repeatable and material, does indeed exist despite that fact. And that simply put science is not a be all and end all tool for proof of it. Philosophy may be that which can argue for its existence where science cannot.

So, for me, that doesn't mean the rarest thing doesn't exist. It just means that science is not sufficient to prove it as science bases validity (existence) on repeatability/consistency.

But the rarest thing is not repeatable. Because its the rarest. Rarity being truly singular in nature. So I would say rare things are immaterial in nature from a material or scientific perspective whilst on the other hand common things are material as they are consistently measurable. Defined. Discrete. Objects.

It is a spectrum between the object (common), all the way through to the immaterial (uncommon), both of which exist by neccesity for one another.

I think an accurate religion would satisfy all walks of life, at all ages. Teenagers are at the pinnacle of uncertainty and thus questioning, as they grapple with both expectation and demands for conformity (adulthood) and previous idealism (childhood).

This leads to a conflict not only between what they once were and what they are expected to become, but internally also. As a transitional state, it is full with doubt and conflict with the self, and this leads to contempt and frustration. Usually pitted against family.

But adults do not have all the answers, while childhood does not require answers in the first place. The change between the two is arguable in most need of spiritual support but at the same time is the most difficult stage to apply such support.

So teenagers are in essence excluded by current religions as children accept religion blindly as do the elderly when faced with impending death and uncertainty.

If any aspect of the 'immaterial' is knowable then it seems to me, that such never was immaterial, and if the immaterial truly does exist, then it has no relevance to this universe, unless it can be irrefutably demonstrated (or at least, very close to irrefutably), that the immaterial can affect this universe. — universeness

I think the immaterial does exist and is intangible to scientific means of exploration. Science cannot prove an individuals mind objectively. Not only because of the hard problem but because it would pervert ethics - the Right to privacy namely (the unknowability of one's mind and inner sphere.of experience).

As individuals are unique, irreplaceable and singular in occurrence. And science depends on reproducible results, repetition, constancy.

Also you simply cannot have material without immaterial. They are neccesary opposites. If you destroy the immaterial you do so by extending materialism beyond its purview.

Throughout history, women held things together when men went to war, and some of them were just as good on the battlefield. Today, I think it is clearly women who are advancing civilization and I think it was the grandmas who got us on the track of civilization.

Money is a part of life, but not the only thing of value. — Athena

Yes, quite right, and no better a portrayal of such then WW2 when it finally dawned on prospective employers that women were and always have been just as capable as men to assume roles in society beyond what was previous thought, beyond the pigeon hole patriarchy had placed women in: clerks, engineers, mechanics, construction workers and business etc - the list is as endless as the jobs it describes, and it was women who kept society running while men committed barbarian acts of aggression against one another on the war front.

So WW2 was a pivotal point for society in finally accepting that women are very much valuable assets to a society and not just merely "a housewife". Whatever that was meant to mean in the first place!?

But I suspect it meant subordination. :(

I hope i clarified well what I was describing. It was contextual to western societies persistent double standards.

I would never dare assume women as beneath men. Ever.

She likely made all the clothing, all the soaps for laundry and bathing, she of course washed those clothes, hung them on a line, and ironed them. She likely chopped her own wood for the cooking fire and if she was well informed she regulated the heat of her oven by using different woods. She planted and tended to the garden, harvested the food, and preserved it. Then she put the food on the table and people did not have the health concerns we have with processed foods. But speaking of health concerns, a well-informed woman knew the healing plants in her area and she took care of everyone, often without the help of a doctor. Everyone meaning not only her family and extended family but the sick and elderly people in the community as well. I considered my domestic skills were my contribution to the breadwinning and I enjoyed winning ribbons at the local fair :grin: and sitting on important decision-making committees. — Athena

You're absolutely correct. I agree. I was referring to how modern society pits the bread against the home. Which is a terrible shame as bread is made at home too. Whoever holds down the Fort enables others to go beyond it to fetch additional resources knowing the home is not going to fall into disarray without them. Again i do apologise if it came across as sexist it was not what I meant so I'm doing my best to clarify the context on which I meant the description

Whoo that was insulting! "true bread winners" :rage: Quick let me put on my philosopher's hat and see if I can deal with this like a reasonable person. — Athena

Oh I'm sorry Athena! :( I didn't intend it as an insult, honestly. Perhaps I need to reconsider how I explain myself.

I meant bread winner in the purely capitalist capacity which doesn't consider bread winning to involve raising a family (which ofc it ought to). It only uses sums (of money) as the "bread" for which I spoke in this case.
As in generating income for the family unit. As we know it's very difficult to stay at home and raise children while also having a full time job. Working from home helps immensely ofc but isn't applicable to every job.

Time is limited and we cannot do everything at once sadly. We must delegate responsibility within and for a family.

My response would be, don't try to control people against their will. — Tzeentch

I don't know. I think that depends on the will of said people. If the will is wholly self serving and caustic to the respect, tolerance or social cohesion of others, I think they need to be reigned in as parents reign in their children's maladaptive and deviant behaviour for their own benefit.

In an ideal world there would be no power play, manipulation and control because everyone would be "on the same page" : ie have the best intentions for one another and the best reasoning capability to implement those intentions.

But society has both a). People with purely bad intentions and B). People who may not have bad intentions but a poor ability to empathise, consider and discern facts, to reason well in general to minimise unwanted harm.

If everyone was an equally proficient philosopher that are well meaning, then society would not need a stringent hierarchy and control of others. This is about education and brethrenhood.

But for whatever reasons people do not think as much as one another. Some think more and are more wise.

So it seems not all efforts to control and manipulate others is inherently bad, they are only bad if the person doing so does not hold everyone else with the same high esteem as they do themselves. Elitism leads to problems, subservience of a greater good (if that greater good is measured, well balanced, and open to review and constructive criticism, if the greater good is accurately so) is not bad.

If I was asked if I would like to be controlled/manipulated by someone who really truly knew what was best for me and everyone else and could demonstrate it (lead by example) I would be happy to relinquish control to them. One less concern on my plate.

But their mastery of ethics and reason must stand to that. It is near impossible to prove. Which is why it is not the case.

Doesn't the quality of that transition depend on the world environment? "We" sophisticated, prosperous westerners with all the potential for advancement and enhancement available to us teach our children differently from the way that "we" subsistence farmers in Karnataka, India, who owe our souls to the sahukar teach our children. Both adulthood and childhood are different in the domes — Vera Mont

Oh absolutely. A good spot. It has a lot of dynamics and interpretations depending on the culture of adults (society at large) in any given context.

I'm sure there is a happy medium between the purely individualist, materialist and capital societies of the west and the more spiritual, community and interpersonal focus demonstrated by the East. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. The west is highly prolific and innovative as science has taken a stronghold there. But it lacks the finer nuances of community spirit and vice versa in the East.

This also operates at a national level as it does on a global one. People in small, close knit rural communities in any country have a distinctly different upbringing and relationship with one another to those in an urbanised High populous area.

yet both these examples can perform feats of reciprocal altruism that some humans can only presume to be “unnatural”. — javra

It is a great shame if humans believe altruism and reciprocity are unnatural. For that to be the case, self service and selfishness would be the natural state of things.

: it's the unrealistically optimistic belief that all individuals in a large grouping of humans can remain ethical toward each other’s needs without hierarchical governance and policing - and that it's this very governance which makes many humans less than ethical. — javra

Exactly. We may be the most optimistic and hopeful people, very sure that our own innate wisdom or ethical principles would serve as just in an anarchist society and thus stabilise it. But this disregards the "rotten apples" of which you speak which are just as likely to occur on society as well doing/well meaning, good folk.

So it seems that a hierarchy is required only as long as it reflects the social conscience (democracy). Because such a hierarchy factors in all peoples needs from all walks of life through voting.

Anarchy is only appropriate when faced with a caustic, hyper Conservative totalitarian government with "law by decree" (of one person).

The heavenly dwellers, hands down. They have the resources, for one thing. For another, as you say, they have time to develop their intellectual capacities and very quickly exhaust any novelty value in their world. Plus - this, for me, is the decisive factor: all of their experience predisposes them to optimism. They have no reason to expect a bad outcome to experimentation. — Vera Mont

Yes quite right Vera. I described some of your ideas in my response to I. L Sushi above.

In essence, in case it had not crossed your mind, which it may indeed have, this OP was designed as a metaphor for childhood and innocence verses adulthood and culpability.

Children do as they wish without much thought for consequences because they live very much in what can be approximated as a form of paradise and novelty and awe/wonder.

Assuming of course that they grow up surrounded by a loving, understanding and protective family.

Children take immense joy out of simple pleasures. Everything is new. They can stay staring at the crystalline dew drops on grass in their first few autumns, struck with amazement. They may show it to their parent which reply rather automatically "that's nice honey", as they are preoccupied with the trials and tribulations of adulthood.

Children in this way live in a world we have long lost to maturity. The heaven dome. But they can remind us of it which is one of the most special things about having children of one's own I think.

Adults on the other hand are a great deal more privy to the world as it actually is, a case of struggle, survival and ups and downs. They live in the hell dome or to a lesser extreme some form of purgatory between the two.

The sad part is that in order to teach children to become socially functional and responsible adults we must untrain them from simple and pure delights. And enable them with critical thinking, a healthy skepticism, and distrust, so that they do not get exploited or bullied by others that are more clued into adult conduct - broad/large-scale reasoning.

This of course happens naturally too. Through friendships, heartbreak, disappointnents and general life experience. Meaning that the transition from innocence to culpability is a turbulent one full of argument, dissonance and struggle not to relinquish the unbounded dreamscape/potential of children. And we know this as teenagehood right? Partly resentful, yet ever more conforming and knowledgeable.

I came across a quote once which has stuck in my mind many years and this is "Adults are like children with many layers, like onions, with each passing moment enveloping oneself with ever more durable and hardened skin.

But fundamentally, adults (living in the hell dome) and children (living in the heaven dome) are united by the greatest of questions: a sheer fascination and perplexity pertaining to existence and all the weird and wonderful things that come from it. Who am I, where did I come from, and what is "this" ?

So I would say in conclusion, if you want to live as a child does, reasonably immune to cynicism, depression, disenchantment, all one must do is stay curious, ask questions, pursue the innate, not that which we conform to. The synthesised.

In essence to refuse denying the pure child under all that we have learned since.

I Agree I. L Sushi.

I think if you gave people the "ideal" world to live in and assuming they accept it as ideal indeed, they would either by accident or on purpose, for lack of a better word, f*@k it up. Haha

I think this is because of something not inherently malevolent in us per se, but out of pure... "curiosity".

Curiosity killed the cat.

If everything is perfect there is no concept of bad. So one would naturally assume they are free to think of, plan and
do whatever they want. That nothing could be harmful to the ideal as "what is harm anyways in an ideal place? But of course everything you want to do does not equal paradise for all involved.

Of course one can consider any number of actions in their mind and never act on them. This is the privilege of the privacy of the mind. That alone does not cause the corruption of an external ideal place. But what it does do is spur curiosity, and doubt, in tandem.

The minute someone says something (an act) or does something (also an act).. To change the ideal, to change perfection itself, it is no longer perfect.

And thus the seed of doubt is planted for others in the system also. Doubt that one does not in fact live in a paradise because an action occurred (spoken or acted out) that made someone else, whoever that may be, feel unhappy. And from it, branching outwards like a tree growing from seed, are the cause and effect of that original doubt, the original action that took everyone out of paradise.

There would now be division in this paradise. Discord. Conflict. Some would question why someone would ever think it wasn't paradise and do the thing they did and blame them for the action. The others would, as you quoted maybe schiller on this, that a life without trial and tribulation is no life at all, and that perfection suffocated meaning and purpose.

I was thinking abstract concepts can only exist in our brains but not externally. — Mark Nyquist

What do you call that type of art hung in galleries like the tate modern, you know, the paintings and sculptures with blobs and strange weird and obscure shapes and such?

Abstract things exist outside of any one individuals brain. Hence why they are interpretative. If art wasn't abstract it would be photography, and even photography can be abstract. So maybe even more extreme, it woukd be mathematics or binary code.

Just because something isn't consistent, universal, replicated, repeating, doesn't mean it's not important.

Tellers do not rely on schrödinger's equations. — Banno

Not yet. You do know quantum computing is currently on the rise.

https://www.idquantique.com/quantum-safe-security/quantum-key-distribution/?utm_source=google_ads_search&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=Cj0KCQiAveebBhD_ARIsAFaAvrH4S4NL5r2RrIPrsFgJV0aIutpAseVuUfx3UFhYPAWDzzRUtioNapkaAuoLEALw_wcB


It will be used by banks soon due to security properties (entanglement and proof of non interference). It has great promis for physics based encryption.

. That's not a quantum account of banking, but it is sufficient to show the dearth of content here. — Banno

Seems you wanted me to include the specific particularities like quarks, spins, the etc and not the main principles/ideas behind quantum physics.

Schrodinger used a cat and it was quite fine.
I used a bank balance. And yet mine is according to you totally irrelevant.

So I do wonder how well versed you might be in QM to not see the exact equivalence between the two. Would you prefer I throw mathematic jargon at you instead so convoluted that it "may" be describing qm

Good luck with it, we can leave it there.

I don't understand that at all. If nothing can be good, or bad, how can anything ever be good, or bad? — Leftist

It can be good or bad. You feel intuitively what's good when you experience the sensation. You know it because you felt it before. Why and when you experience the sensation of goodness however, is defined by the personal qualities you apply to it. That's relative. Ie. It's different for everyone

If you apply the idea of money to "good" in your mind then you will feel good when you get paid, and feel bad when in debt.

You can change not only what you apply to the idea of good (the quality) but also the amount of things that are good (the quantity).
In both cases that doesn't mean good doesn't exist. It just means it's open to how we choose to accept it/reject it, how we choose to define it.
Hope (an inkling that good is still there despite no evidence for it) is the last good thing felt by a depressed person before they lose it, and their life.

The proponents of both consequentialism and deontology having good intentions is different to consequentialism and deontology being good. I'm going to say it - Hitler believed what it was doing was good, it doesn't make what he was doing good. Same for less extreme examples. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well no, not the same for less extreme examples because if Hitlers acts were in fact very bad (which I think most people would agree they were), then less extreme examples are those that are less bad and more neutral. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum would be those that are neutral-slightly good, good, very good and extremely good.

This is ofc course only the case in reference to people who think hitler was really bad (the majority, myself included). Neonazis would probably think differently as I'm sure Hitlers closest comrades at the time did. He must have been toxically persuasive to any un assuming layman (good at hiding his agenda and even better at manipulating people into doing his bidding for him).

You cant have extremely bad (Hitler) without extremely good (?). But where are these opposing examples to narcissistic, power hungry, autocratic dictators? Where are the heroes in the plot?

I suppose we don't know who those people are because I'd imagine they prefer to not take power from others and rise to the top of our hierarchies of fame, glory and recognition. They likely empower others to do that in the name of what's extremely good, and hope they continue to seek council from them, if they know what's good for them anymore that is.

Basically, if we can collectively judge one person as the most evil, sinister and malevolent person alive, then by those same grounds we must be able to identify the opposite person.

But because one lies about the other, and the other only tells the truth (contradictory nature), for everyone else in-between - it's moral relativism. They don't know who to listen to entirely and that's a dilemma.
For the two extremes however, it's actual morality.

Literally all of our best theater, movies, literature etc and even historical figures are about a protagonist which is misunderstood (no one knows they are truly the protagonist) and they are misunderstood because of the persuasive abilities of the villain. And in the end comes some big climax where the hero and villain come face to face and reckon with one another. We as the audience watch a story of the interplay between moral relativism (the I don't knows of the spectators, scratching the heads in the middle) and moral actuality (the good - the hero and the bad - the villain).

Everyone wants a Hero (moral). Nobody wants to be the hero. (relativism).

Can we choose our thoughts? If not, does this rule out free will? — Paul Michael

I don't think we can choose our thoughts.

For example don't think about a pink elephant!

What are you thinking about right now?

However, we can choose what value to place on a thought. Whether we believe its worth treasuring (memorising) or discarding as absurd (forgetting).
We do this by either networking it, making connections and associations between it and the rest of our mentalscape, or we can leave it very temporarily and weakly connected where it is easily lost or overwritten with more important thoughts.

This can be done involuntarily/subconsciously by strong emotions or it can be done voluntarily through concerted effort/concentration/focus.