Corruption is a moral shift, as for which moral shifts go under "corruption", I guess that's semantics or subjective, not sure we need to agree on it — Judaka

Its essential to the prompt of the conversation. If we can't agree on what corruption is, we can't discuss it.

My earlier statement was wrong actually, even if morality was objective, your logic would still be circular. You're defining moral people as people who act morally, and people who act morally as moral people. — Judaka

That's still not a definition of circular logic. Just point out the flaw without trying to use logical fallacies as this is twice you've misused the fallacy.

People who are moral act morally. What would corruption then be? Despite the person previously knowing, agreeing, and following moral precepts, the person begins to purposefully not follow them.

For example, a person knows that lying for personal gain is wrong. One day, they decide its not worth the headache anymore and start lying for personal gain. They know its wrong, but consistently do it anyway. A slip up here and there is a corrupt action, but a consistent and willingly violation of known morality would be considered the corruption of a moral person.

I think everyone has their opinions, and their reasons for thinking they're correct. — Judaka

Which is fine. But just because someone has an opinion or thinks its correct, it does not make them correct. That's why we're discussing philosophy. Philosophy is never an opinion. Its a well thought out logical proposal of language and models that can be applied to reality with consistent results. So the words that we use matter very much. If we're not establishing solid definitions, then we're just emotional opinions swirling around each other in some mad dance of pointlessness.

Morality itself is corrupted by power, and so it's common for the powerful elite of society to operate by moral principles vastly different from what we see amongst the common person. — Judaka

There has been no mention thus far of relative morality, so no circular logic. I am assuming what is moral is consistent whether you have power or not. If morality is relative, then you need to define the difference between corruption and someone shifting their moral stance. A moral stance shift alone does not demonstrate that power corrupts, only that moral situations change with more power.

So, do you believe morality to be stable, or relative? And if relative, when does corruption occur vs a moral stance shift due to the situations and needs that arise due to having more power?

Like anything, its excess that is the problem. I think pornography can be very healthy for people for situations in which they are unable to be in an actual relationship. Even then, if the relationship is healthy porn can be used correctly by both parties to add flair to sex.

If porn becomes a replacement for a real relationship, or real sex in a relationship, then its a problem. Which now we consider young teenagers and run into a problem. Society forbids them sexual exploration with real people, yet they arguably have the strongest sexual urges they'll ever have in their lifetimes. How do you teach teenagers to be responsible with porn to not replace a real relationship while forbidding them from having real relationships? Is it porn that is the problem, or societies terror at teenagers have sexual relationships?

Porn is a tool, and a powerful one. I believe its the fact that we do not teach teenagers how to use it properly, but let them figure it out on their own, that leads to widespread abuse and mismanagement of it.

No, I was noting that power does not make a person corrupt. A moral person is moral because they choose to be despite lack or rewards or possible harm. Power amplies possible rewards for behaving immorally, and minimizes possible harm. If a person starts to behave immorally because the risk of harm for behaving immorally is minimized, then we get to see who the person was morally all along.

Moral people when given power behave in moral ways. People who become corrupt when given power weren't moral, they were just previously constrained. Its like the arm chair moralist in philosophy. Plenty of people will think in their head, "Oh, I would rationally do the right thing given this circumstance." Would you really? Its a whole other situation when the reality of threats and rewards are right there in front of you. Being able to rationally ascertain what is moral doesn't make you a moral person. Your actions when tested do.

I think studies have been done on children who thought they were being watched versus not, or those who were suggested that an all seeing God is always present. When they thought there were no witnesses they stole from the cookie jar when the adults left the room. — TiredThinker

What are your thoughts on this in relation to my point?

Power does not corrupt. Power reveals character. A person who obtains power and "becomes" corrupt, was always a corrupt individual all along who was constrained only by the threat of punishment of some kind. An uncorrupt person who obtains power will still remain uncorrupted because their morals and values were not reliant on the threat of harm from others for not following them.

A good topic. I largely agree with your viewpoints with one implicit addition, "If those who speak freely do not intend to manipulate through untruths with the intent of personal benefit while harming others."

That of course is a mouthful, and easily followed by the question of, "Who determines what is true, harmful, and a selfish benefit?" This cannot be any one individual, and it cannot be mob rule either. This must be proven in a court of law with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond that, say what you will.

But to a finer point, why have any restrictions at all? Nos, you tend to have a supremely optimistic viewpoint of humanity. Rightly so, you note that bad actors are a minority of citizens in many situations. I do not know your viewpoint on this so I will ask, "Are you aware of the destruction even one person with ill intent can cause?"

In my experience in history and in life, one bad actor can ruin a carefully constructed environment of trust and good will. It takes days to build a building, but one day for a bomber to bring it all down. In my viewpoint, societal restrictions in general are not because the majority of people need to be managed, but to minimize and prevent the severity of the rare bad actors involved. Can an oppressive government cause more harm then one bad actor? Unquestioningly. But in general a place with no governance, screening, or rules will inevitably have to contend with the inevitable bad actor that causes ruin.

The same goes for speech. Governments for years have used propaganda in enemy states to sow discord in other states and make them unstable. Liars peddle harmful and shoddy products to consumers that cause permanent damage and death, then disappear to another area of the world. The reality is that people are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings who look for "reasons" to back their emotional beliefs. This makes lies a powerful weapon to use against people. Should we allow this unrestricted, I would argue any society would inevitably collapse in time due to a few bad actors. So from my viewpoint, some restrictions are needed for these reasons. What about yourself?

Unlike the “will of all” the “general will” refuses to take into account the private and particular interests of all individuals involved. It excludes them. Instead, it takes account of something called the “common interest”. — NOS4A2

The "Will of all" can be implemented both as a collective, and as an individual. But so to can the "Will of self". An individualist with the will of self does not care at all about their impact on other people, and can be completely exclusionary. A collectivist society that narrows itself also has a "will of self". The best example I can think of is a totalitarian society in which a self extends its will completely over others and a certain percentage of society agrees with this and enforces it.

I have appreciated the conversation, but perhaps I am diverging on the points you want to address here. To say that collectivism is more or less exclusionary than individualism, as a blanket statement, is wrong. If you wish to compare certain exclusionary collectivist ideologies and compare them to a particular inclusive individualistic ideology, then of course you can. There is no debate that a particular inclusive individual ideology is more inclusive then particular exclusive collectivist ideology.

If you want to bring this back to the point of a blanket statement, I would compare the most exclusionary individualistic ideology, like solipsism, and compare it to the most inclusionary collectivism such as a rights based democratic ideology, and demonstrate why why solipsism is more inclusive. But unless such a comparison can be correctly made, I don't think it can be reasonably concluded that all collectivist ideologies are more exclusive then all individualistic ideologies.

I agree that individualism is a personal belief, but so is collectivism. And it is no collective decision if others accept either of these principles. These are personal, individual decisions made by real, flesh-and-blood human beings, not arbitrary and abstract groupings.

Any collection of people is a collection of individuals. Each of these individuals adopt beliefs and principles on their own accord, and not by any collective agreement. — NOS4A2

Yes, I agree. On top of that, we're now looking at the point of exclusion and inclusion. I see this as enforcement and non-enforcement. If I understood your meaning of collectivism you meant that it enforces its decisions by groups, rather then allowing individuals to do whatever they want. And so individualism would then be a person who creates their own ideology then enforces it how they personally desire. No one else will force them or save them from someone else unless of course another person just happens to agree.

I accept any individual to have his own beliefs and interests, and defend his right to have them, whether communist, fascist, theocratic, or any collectivist doctrine. What I do not accept is any individual to infringe on the rights of another individual, and this is the direct result of individualism, not collectivism. — NOS4A2

And this is my second point. You enforce your own ideology. You do not accept, or exclude others who do not match you precepts. But of course someone could have a view of individualism, because they are not shaped by a collectivist society, that includes and excludes different people. Collectivist societies are also varied as well. Being collectivist does not dictate what the group is collectivist about, just like being an individualist does not dictate what the individual is about. So one society could be highly inclusive, while another highly exclusive. The same for an individual.

Meaning that we cannot compare collectivism to individualism as a blanket statement and state that one is more inclusive or exclusive than another. Now, could we say that a highly inclusive individualism is more inclusive than a highly exclusive collectivist society? Yes. But the reverse can equally be claimed without contradiction. A highly inclusive collective would be more inclusive than a highly exclusive individualism.

But if the individualist regards the individual as the primary unit of concern in any political society, he necessarily regards each individual in that way. — NOS4A2

Yes, but a political society is a collection of individuals who have an organized manner of interacting with others. That necessitates some level of collectivism. True individualism is merely a personal belief that cannot be enforced or mutual assurance. Individualism can only exist by the allowance of other individuals who ascribe to your personal beliefs. This is a collective decision.

Individualism in itself does not ascribe that other people must follow its precepts. Meaning you can define individualism for yourself as others have individual primacy, rights, and dignity. But another individualist could easy ascribe to the idea that others besides themselves have no individual primacy, rights, and dignity.

If you are referring to individualism as a collection of people who believe that individual primacy, rights, and dignity should be afforded to other people, that's still collectivist. It is inclusive of those who support individual primacy, rights, and dignities, while excluding those who do not agree with these. To say someone has a right, is to as a group deny any individual from removing that right from another. This requires a collective agreement.

If you believe individualism should not have any collective means of agreement, then it is just a personal opinion or ethic. Even then, you would accept only those who agreed with your viewpoint of individualism, and reject those who did not. If someone else impinged on your rights or individualism, you would be required to exclude that person from further interactions in your life to be consistent in your values.

In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice.

Are there any objections to this? — NOS4A2

Yes. You are describing a collectivist interpretation of individualism. Who is affording primacy to each individual in a collective? The collective. True individualism affords no such primacy to any. True individualism does not care about a collective definition or ideology of individualism.

True individualism is a set of beings that exist without any regards to one another. There are no rules, laws, or limitations on interactions with another being. An individual may decide to exclude others, or include others. Help, or harm.

True collectivism is a set of beings that exist with regards to one another. In collectivism there is a set of implicit or explicit rules of behavior that the other group members will either support or punish to ensure individuals follow them. Collectives can welcome other individuals to the group, and be incredibly inclusive. For example, a collective that highly favors individual rights with a very limited and lightly punished rule set may allow different cultures in, despite some individuals wishing to exclude them.

So I find that being individualistic vs collectivist has no bearing on whether it is an inclusive or exclusive ideology. Each ideology can have a degree of inclusiveness and exclusiveness within, and thus comparing them does not result in any clear victor.

Is that what happened in e.g. the last banning? — Amity

When I was warned for my posts or behavior, I was reached out to privately. Moderators generally do not air such issues publicly. No one knew when moderators contacted me, and I'm sure others on here who have been warned can confirm that. I see no reason why it would be different for the recently banned individual.

A good question. Lets examine what goes into a ban. First, a ban usually only happens after repeated reports and warnings from the moderators. I've had first hand experience here of having a post removed, or a warning from the moderators to tone down rhetoric. What did I do? I apologized, listened, and adjusted my approach.

As you can see, I am not banned. So we can take this evidence to show that the moderators do not ban people at first, but warn and reach out to show how to properly behave on these forums. Why would a moderator ban a person then? The only reason I can think of is despite repeated warnings and letting people know how to behave, they did not adjust their behavior or posting patterns.

Forgiveness should be given to those that try. Those that do not try are a drain of resources on the moderators time. They disturb other posters, and make the forums a less conducive place to genuine polite discussion and thought. While you see that they were suddenly banned one day, what you didn't see was likely the weeks and/or months of repeated warnings, requests, and second, third, etc. chances that were repeatedly ignored by the poster. Why would you allow such a person back? They obviously don't care for polite warnings. So we have to use a cudgel to get them to care? What happens if a moderator turns their back for a second? Or if the allowed person comes back and tries to take revenge before being kicked out again?

There is a truth that all forgiving people need to understand. There are people who will never change in the world. They will be unable to fit into certain social and written laws. The only solution after repeated attempts at allowing them to change is to remove them. In my experience, to be banned on this forum takes a great disregard for the moderators, the rules, and repeated violations. As such, as long as the moderators involved followed such a process, bans should not be allowed back.

In order to underwrite your own intellectual credibility and your right to pass judgement, please set out clearly your criteria for "low quality". — alan1000

Did you use poor language? Insult people? Did you think that because you saw another post that seemed low brow in your eyes you could do the same?

My advice if you really want an answer is to politely message the person who moderated your post, and without sarcasm, snark, or a sense of superiority, humbly ask why the post was inappropriate. If they reply, do not argue or debate them. Listen and learn with humbleness. And do not go into the public forums again trying to denigrate the moderators and attempt to garner sympathy as a victim.

Hello Hello. If you're interested in some deep dives into epistemology, I've spent years thinking on the issue here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1

I use my theories in my own day to day life. It works. Here's an introduction.

The one thing we can know is that we are able to discretely experience. Meaning, you can take the experience you have as a whole from all your senses and awareness, and focus on parts of it. This cannot be disproven, therefore we know it as a fact.

Because of this, what we discretely experience is known. The next question of knowledge is identity. Identity is formed when we first discretely experience a "thing". At that point we assign essential properties to it within our own context. Properties that can change but still allow us to keep the identity in our heads for the thing we are observing are non-essential. For example, person A could be standing in one spot, then in another spot at a later time. The location of person A is non-essential to their identity of being person A.

So how do we know that person A is person A upon encountering them again. We simply match the essential properties either consciously or unconsciously with our experience of person A again. The initial claim is a belief. If we examine the situation to the point where it is deductively certain that the person is in fact person A, that is how we know them to be. Could there be information we missed? Sure. But personal knowledge is about the deductions we make within the limits of our own limitations.

The theory goes on to explain how knowledge works through societies, and ultimately explains how we can form cogent inductions. I'll let you read it for yourself if you're interested in exploring more.

Interesting thought. I believe that great people do not necessarily know they are great, they are driven to become great. Studies have shown time after time that genius is not a gift without copious amounts of practice and work. The greats typically continue to improve their craft through their lifetimes and do not take what they have for granted.

In fact, a poison pill for a person's continued elevated status is to allow the accolades and successes one has obtained to go to their head. When one is "great", then one does not have to continue to work hard. This of course leads to the erosion of one's skills. Further, people are great because of those they surround themselves with as well. It is the rare myth of the lone genius who triumphs over all. Most people are able to become what they are because of the people they surround themselves with. If you "know" you're great, cockiness and arrogance can set in, driving away the people who helped make you a success to begin with.

To be truly great is a lifelong pursuit that requires humbleness. Humbleness is the accurate recognition of your capabilities without hubris. Humbleness is an awareness of your weaknesses so you can continue to improve. Other people appreciate those who are humble, and want to continue to support them in their continued growth.

So, if you think you're not a great thinker then guess what - you're not. But if you think you are a great thinker then, though the odds are against it, there's a tiny possibility that you are. — Bartricks

To address this then, if you think you aren't a great thinker, but you want to be, then you can become a great thinker. An inaccurate assessment of yourself is the hallmark of a poor thinker. Someone who realizes they aren't that great but wants to be, has the makings of a great thinker.

Everyone else thinks the great thinker is not a great thinker. — Bartricks

I would say this is incorrect. Barring a minority of people, great thinkers are often appreciated. A person who has a few good thoughts but cannot communicate them in a way that the majority of people would appreciate has a lot of improvement to do.

But the great thinker or artist has access to some evidence that others do not have access to. They are discerning, correctly, their own greatness. — Bartricks

In some cases this is correct. But if one is such a great thinker, they should be able to explain it to others in a way that most people will understand. If they can't, then they have a lot of improvement to do before they can be considered great thinkers. Anybody can create an idea that is understood by themselves to be great. That's what society tests. If you can't convince anyone else, its not that you're a special kind of genius that no one else can understand. Its that you are incapable of communicating your idea in a clear and convincing manner.

What does green sound like? How much does love weigh?

Just being able to string words together in question format doesn't imply an answer is wanting. — Isaac

In these cases, yes, they are nonsense questions. And in my case, using an apple as feeling was nonsense as well. I hope you didn't ignore the point to focus on one loose example. Can you know what it will feel like to be a bat without being a bat yourself? No.

OK, but the discussion was about how I am a specific person and not a different person. — noAxioms

Two factual reasons. 1. Your genetic composition is not 100% identical with any other human being. 2. You exist in a different space then another human being. Thus "that rock over there" is the combination of the concept "rock", and "a particular rock in that spacial location".

Your car accident killed two pregnant women, one a week pregnant driving the other one in labor to the hospital. How many charges of manslaughter? — noAxioms

This would be determined by those who make the laws of the land. Who should we give authority to make the judgement? That differs from culture to culture. In general though, most cultures state that a fetus is not a person until it is born. Are they right? You be the judge.

Also, what if we genetically modify the genome and produce something arguably not human? Does it have human rights? — noAxioms

No, it is no longer human. But affording rights to only humans is something I disagree with. In modern societies we don't allow people to buy a dog and torture it for fun. The dog isn't human, but it is an abhorent act that we don't want to affect another thinking and living thing.

At what point did we become people and not some ape? — noAxioms

Rationally, we are arguably a variation of chimpanzee, and the most evolutionarily advanced form of hominid. Here is an example of a hominid that used fire as a tool. https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/like-modern-humans-homo-naledi-harnessed-fire-for-light-warmth-and-cooking/

The difference came about due to chromosome changes. If we have a person who has a new set of chromosomes that result in different behaviors that we as society deem "not human", then they will likely enter into this classification.

It brings to mind the arguments 200 years ago that black people were not people, hence being a emotionally satisfying position that justified their cruel treatment. — noAxioms

Then let me clarify. Instead of "others" being people, let it be living creatures that can suffer and die.

Perhaps a little clarification. The hard problem has nothing to do with the biology of consciousness. Lets say in 20 years we discover all of the biological processes of consciousness. 100 years later we learn exactly what feelings and thoughts are, and can translate and affect them in the brain with 100% accuracy.

There is one question that this will not answer. What does is the experience of being conscious as that person? Its not really even necessarily consciousness depending on your definition. Its being. An apple is a group of living cells. What is it like to be an apple? To exist and realize you are an apple? Or a dog? Another human being?

To my understanding it is answering what it is like to experience being something that is the hard problem of consciousness. It is an impossible question to answer with our current understanding of the world. Does that mean that consciousness isn't biological or cannot be measured accurately by science? Not at all.

To simplify a complex question, a 'person' is a word we use to describe a concept. Now that concept can mean different things to different people based on their background and thought process. The question is, "When we bring more people into the picture, can we find a common set of concepts that we can all agree is a person?"

That agreement of course can take an emotional level, in which case there is likely to be insoluble disagreements between different groups. It can also extend to a rational level, which concludes something that everyone "should" agree on, but may not be due to a lack of emotional satisfaction.

At the rational level I believe a person can be defined by science. At its core, people are a living minimum set of genetics. This is the reason you are a person and not a monkey. And that's really it. A person who lacks specific qualities that the majority have, but is genetically a person, is still a person. So a mute, someone born with defects, etc., is still a person.

As I mentioned before, this may not be an emotionally satisfying answer. In which case I would answer, "A person is what is emotionally satisfying to you personally, while not unduly harming yourself or others." If it works for you and gets you through your day in a beneficial manner, believe whatever you want.

Yes, this hypothetical changes a lot. My choice may seem radical but I would take the red pill regardless of what the real world is like. Of course assuming that in your hypothetical suicide is an option in the real world. — TheMadMan

I don't think its radical at all! Thanks for the discussion. :smile:

The exclusion of those points is deliberate as they open too many doors. My hypothetical is not set in the world of the movie. But if you would like it be be so, be my guest. — TheMadMan

That's very fair!

I suppose the question can be rephrased like this then.

1. Your life is an illusion created in your mind. An outside being feeds you this illusion, crafting a world to your innate desires. By your life's end, you will obtain everything you wanted in this illusion.

2. There is a "real world". You don't know what it is or what it would entail. But in the real world this outside being would not be feeding you illusions or controlling the outcome of your life.

3. One day someone comes along and informs you of all this. You can be assured that this is not a trick. You are given the option to enter into the unknown. Do you?

The problem to answer this adequately is we must know what the alternative to the simulation entails.
What is the outside world like, and what is going on? Are people living harsh lives and working to make it better while my body leeches off of this being? Do I have loved ones that miss me? Are we all experiencing this? Could it shape my life in such a way that I would think I would want something in its world? That I was being programmed to be satisfied?

We don't really have a choice otherwise. We can craft the question to get the outcome we want which is, "Yes, its optimal and rational to take the blue pill". But a good question should present us with known choices to be more than a personality quiz. Saying, "Would you take what is familiar and beneficial to you or lose it for the potential of something better." isn't really a rational discussion, as its an inductive question that relies on a personal choice.

Now if you are more interested in personal choices, that is fine, its a very good question. I can answer that some will say yes, and others no based on their risk aversion/reward systems. If you want something where rationality can enter into the mix and we can debate a correct choice, I think we need to be presented with the full set of alternatives and possible consequences of choosing the red pill over the blue.

I think we're missing something in the conversation. You've only emphasized the positive qualities, and not the negative ones.

1. The robots have complete control over when you live and die. If you had cancer or a problem with your actual body, you think they would spend the energy to fix it? No.

2. The robots have complete control over your program. In the matrix, some people are poor, programmed to be poor, and programmed to live miserable lives. Lets say you get lucky and have the nice life, for now. There is no certainty that it will continue no matter what you do. Your free will is extremely limited, much more than in reality.

3. The program is not designed to give you a perfect life. It is designed with its entire intention to farm you for energy with you becoming aware of it. Wouldn't you have a much greater interest in your own benefit then someone using you as a battery? What if in the future the robots figure out other ways of farming you for energy then what they are currently providing?

4. Your ability to do anything meangingful is gone. You are living a dream the entire time. You really do not invent anything new. Physics discoveries? Programmed by the matrix. Your child? Just an artificially cooked up kid from genetics that don't belong to you that you've been programmed to have an imprint on.

I think the only rational decision is to take the red pill. Someone who does not have your well being at interest but is only interested in using what you have should not be in control of your life and fate.

Should we be able to identify however we like? Would that be problematic and is there an ethical dimension? Should identities be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

Lets clarify "identity". Do you mean an identity within a group of other people, or a self-identity?

In the case of self-identity, identify yourself however you want. As long as it doesn't get you killed or harm yourself, no foul. In the case of a social identity, you can attempt to identify yourself however you want, but people do not have to accept this.

In the case of a "Police Officer", you're indicating an identity that contains a status behind it that indicates training, accountability, and social authority. If you identify as a police officer without these, then you are a problem to society.

In the case of identifying yourself as a genius, other people are going to have to agree with you. Surround yourself with some people, and they may agree with you, or at least let you hold this belief among that group.

do personal identities (which could include religious identities) have a special status and should they be challenged? — Andrew4Handel

I would argue they can be challenged if someone sees that harm is coming to the individual or those around them. Other then that, unless someone brings those identities into the public purview, it really isn't anyone else's business. Many times our self-identities are how we get through our day. If its working for us, then let it slide.

Space has properties or qualities, for example, space is voluminous; space has volume. Space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. An object simply moving through space is an interaction with space. — daniel j lavender

You claim there is nothing or nonexistence around that single thing. To the contrary, I contend existence, I contend space is around it. — daniel j lavender

What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. Its simply an identity we created to describe the idea of there being a "thing", and then there being "no thing" around it. Your personal identities may or may not represent reality. In the case of space in reality, it is "no thing". You can say its "something", but it is only "some thing" as your personal invented identity. In terms of measurement and reality, it is "no thing".

Let’s say the aforementioned single object split into two and those masses dispersed. What allowed that occurrence? Nothingness, nonexistence with no properties, no capacity? Or space, immaterial expanse with capacity to allow such dispersion? — daniel j lavender

The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. So we can invent a foot being "this" big. Then note that there are three feet of distance between them. That doesn't mean there is "some thing" between the split. There's just an abstract identity we use in language.

To sum, identity does not equal reality. Our ideas of identity that represent reality, are not guarunteed to match reality. You seem to believe that because you can create an identity in your mind, it must therefore exist apart from your mind in reality. It does not have to at all.

The object just split into two. So before the environment was nothingness. But suddenly, magically, when the object split into two nothingness became space because distance. Preposterous. — daniel j lavender

Not preposterous at all. As I've noted, your ability to create an identity does not mean reality has changed. There is still "no thing" in between them. You've simply created an abstraction in your mind, then believe what you created in your mind must exist as "some thing" in reality. It exists as nothing more than an abstraction in your mind. To show otherwise, try to prove it.

Let’s say the single object, rather than splitting, stretches or expands. In that case more material isn’t necessarily added to the object but rather space is shifted, additional space is incorporated into the expanding object covering more area. The material becomes less dense as the object expands. Nothingness doesn’t magically become space. — daniel j lavender

There's no magic here. For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. Its the same as a full 3 split, just at an elemental level.

Space has properties or qualities. Space has demonstrable interaction as illustrated here. Nonexistence, nothing does not. Space and nonexistence are not the same. Space is. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Space (n.): Immaterial medium or expanse; that which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space indicates presence of matter or energy. — daniel j lavender

What is an "immaterial medium or expance" then? Is it a "thing"? There is an old philosophical and scientific theory of "ether". It was the medium which all things traveled through. That has been disproven. https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance

Due to this, we can safely state that "space" is not a medium when the absense of space indicates the presence of matter or energy. "Nothingness" is the absence of matter or energy. To show that "nothing" is "some thing", you would need to demonstrate some existent property that is not matter or energy. No one has been able to do that so far. So until that happens, "nothingness" is real.

I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible?
— Philosophim

It isn’t my motivation. — daniel j lavender

That did not answer my question. That was an evasion because you distrust that admitting your motivation will diminish you in my eyes. It will not. Everyone has a motivation for doing things, and often times I find that people will go to great lengths in inventing and creating ideas that serve that motivation without asking themselves if they're being honest about it.

There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth that takes our feelings and stamps them to the ground. Until that is your motivation, everything you think of will be tainted in another direction. Sometimes truth fits our worldview wonderfully, other times it does not.

I hold the viewpoint of scientific and culturally normal conclusions. You do not. Why? That may be more pertinent to examine then attempting to negate commonly held knowledge.

Returning to my previous statement:

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence.
— daniel j lavender

Many may argue this to be the quantum field, not space, suggesting particles which appear and disappear are fluctuations in the field. In which case the quantum field and all other activity and phenomena would still be existence, — daniel j lavender

If particles actually disappear, then nothing is left over. In the case of describing a quantum field, no one would object to this. A quantum field is a mathematical abstraction for measurement however, and has not been proven to exist everywhere without any "nothingness" in between it. If this can be proven, then we return to the ether theory as being scientific knowledge. But until that day arrives, "nothingness" is real.

I would say creativity is the reordering of things that exist into a concept that you have not encountered before. So for example, I take a bunch of legos and come up with a new structure or way of putting them together with glue that will decay after a day. I make this nice lego structure, then film the blocks falling one by one as the structure decays in real time. I then note that if we represents that the glue of society must continually be refreshed or it will decay.

Now is it popular, effective, or profitable creativity? If I presented the format correctly, maybe. Being creative doesn't mean what you've created will be appreciated or valued by anyone else but you. Because you are putting together something that very few, or perhaps no one else has done before, you need to put it before lots of people to see if its something they appreciate or value.

I do wonder how ideas of creativity are socially constructed and to what extent do some pursue their creative quests in relation to social circumstances and luck. — Jack Cummins

The reality is that creativity is most often a failure in the eyes of many people. Something too alien or outside of one's comfort zone makes many people uncomfortable. Creativity often times breaks unspoken and sometimes spoken rules and norms of society. How do I know this? I am a creative person. Its gets me in trouble, a LOT. Some people despise or do not want to see my view points. Other times you might hit gold on something creative, and some may love what it brings to the table.

All people have strengths and weaknesses. To be creative, yet understand what society wants, be socially stable, good looking, have access to money, and charismatic is a combination needed for success that extremely few people have on their own. The reality for most of us is people succeed through collaboration. Most of the individuals who received recognition throughout history had a team or friends that were just as important and a part of their success as that individual was. One person may get the "credit", but they could never have done it by themselves.

For a creative person to have success, they need friends or business minded people around them who can help find the valuable bits of creativity within the mounds of trash that are produced. They need people who are NOT creative, who understand how the world exists today, and what people today want and need. Further, the creative person needs people around them to provide them acceptance, time, and many times money to provide an environment where a creative person can just focus on their work.

Creative people in such an environment are invaluable to society. Creative people outside of such an environment may be seen as crack pots, socially inept, or failures who need to go get a real job. Good question Jack!

Note how no one can answer why they themselves need to be governed. I expected as much. It’s always someone else who needs to be governed, like the murderer in your condescending fantasy. — NOS4A2

It was not intended to be condescending. You missed the point. The murderer does not think they are wrong. The murderer does not believe they need to be governed. They think they have no blind spots or need for others. But this simply isn't the case. No one is a one man perfect army. You and I are no different in our personal blindness and bias. WE need governing, because WE are no different from one another in our myopic view of our own perfection, capabilities, and self-sufficiency in relation to other people.

The only people who do not need governance are those who live in the woods somewhere away from other people. Whenever two or more people have to interact, fledgling governance begins. Perhaps its a mutually negotiated outcome. Perhaps its one person overpowering the other. Whatever happens, implicit and explicit rules in how you both interact with one another begin. And if one of you doesn't follow it? Consequences of some kind ensue.

As to why people use examples of others and not themselves, is because no one wants to admit their flaws. Because then the reply will be, "Well YOU might have those flaws, but I do not." This is incorrect. You have flaws Nos, plenty of them. I do as well. Our flaws and desires are different, and if we have to interact with each other, there are spoken and unspoken expectations and behaviors between us is there not? If you or I behave a certain way on these forums, will we not be reprimanded? Do you honestly think the forums would be a better place if there were no rules or moderators? That is basic governance. And it is absolutely needed for groups to work together with a mutual benefit.

Now, to be fair to you, perhaps you observe there can be negative consequences of governance. No one would dispute that. There are positives and negatives to almost every system and choice we have in life. To ignore the negatives and only see the positives, is as foolish as the other way around.

Governance is an absolutely needed tool/descriptor of relations between humanity. Like any tool, it can be used incorrectly. But its incorrect use does not mean we do not need the tool when the job calls for it.

I don't think I should be governed. I'm an adult who can make my own choices in life. I went down to a nice farm the other day and introduced myself to the folks down there. I was interested in country life. I saw that they lived off the grid, self-sufficient, independent, and happy. They let me stay the night, which was wonderful of them.

Later that night after I killed them in their sleep, I woke up in the morning happy that I had gained the sense of peace, and land, that they had. It was fun picking some of the tomatoes that had ripened and eating off of the land as God intended. I stayed for a few days until I got bored and moved on, but I don't think I'll ever quite forget the experience of being completely free and self-sufficient out there in the wilderness.

NOS, your problem is you see the world only through your viewpoint, and no one else's. Also, you believe, like the gentleman above, that there is nothing wrong with your viewpoint of the world. Many of us walk around as individuals thinking we have it all figured out. We don't. We need other people to point things out to us, and at times, stop us from doing terrible wrongs to others. People who participate in society without issue understand this.

Now I don't think you yourself are a bad person or that you would have done anything to those folks. But you have an incredibly high sense of your own self-worth and capability. You're the guy who believes they would survive the zombie apocalypse. You see the world's truth, and cannot understand why others do not. So of course to you, you see government as worthless. To help, you have to realize its not about you. You alone don't matter in the equation. Government is about people, every shade, and type. Government is about people who would not survive the zombie apocalypse, those who would enslave and kill others, and then people like you who would be just fine dodging zombies all day with your stockpile of food and water.

If you want to understand why people need to be governed, the answer is to meet more people. Government is a tool of the human race to ensure survival of groups of people. Different groups of people have different needs that good governments serve.

In my experience, political discussion can easily turn into a poisonous cancer that can warp even the most gentle people into insane psychopaths. That is because political discussions are often about identity and power, and rarely invite people who are open minded and seeking truth. They should be heavily moderated to ensure they are philosophical discussions, and not emotional rants.

Growth is what is desired. Growth can be uncomfortable, but there is something to be gained at the end. Suffering is just undue stress and destruction. There is no profit at the end.

↪Philosophim Understood. So in your view, a philosophy would be the early stage of a science, like a fetus becoming a newborn. — A Christian Philosophy

That's a nice analogy that sums it up!

↪Philosophim Hello. I agree that questioning definitions would be a rational and not empirical science, because we cannot test what we cannot yet define. However, I'd say philosophy is more than that. E.g. ethics seeks correct behaviour, and not merely definitions. — A Christian Philosophy

I'll add some details to my simple reply. Philosophy to me has always been about finding definitions that fit successfully within the world. What is "good"? What is "knowledge"? Such questions require philosophers to construct solutions that are also of the world. Successful philosophy becomes science. Failed philosophy is still in the process.

On the same token, science sometimes discovers things which have no definition. And thus philosophy is needed once again.

Lets simplify this further.

You can murder 10,001 people to prevent one man from murdering 10,000 people, or not murder anyone at all.

The correct answer is not to murder 10,001 people.

Since you've also included that the dictator may not actually murder anyone, this becomes even clearer. You do not murder anyone.

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves.

Very simple, you are forgetting that you are an observer. As long as you exist as something separate from A, then you have a relative entity to A. If only one thing exists, you do not exist. In which case there is no concept of A, nor any concept of there not being A.

Logic is the necessary resolution of our ability to create form and substance out of the infinite. Unlike a camera which does not identify what it sees, humans can look and say, "Oh, that's grass, and that's a sheep." "A" is 1. And if you combine 1 and 1, you can come up with a concept called 2. Logic is simply the consequence of our ability to create discrete experiences in existence.

Wonderful analysis as always Philosophim: let me try to adequately respond. — Bob Ross

Likewise Bob! Despite my points against your essay, I am always impressed by your creativity, open mind, and thought process. Lets dive in again.

I would like to clarify that neither “in toto” nor “in total” are concepts that directly entail an infinite: the former is a conception which is conceived (i.e., defined) as holistic, whereas “in total” is the conception of the summation of its parts (i.e., in content). — Bob Ross

For me, the confusion about toto came because your previous paragraph talks about infinity. You then mention toto is a concept without bounds, which implies infinity. But if I'm understanding correctly, we're really talking about form, vs what makes up that form. So for example, a tree is a form. All the indeterminate encompassing (possibilities?) which can make up the form of a tree are toto, where as if we could know all the possibilities, we could summate those in total.

But then there seems to be a contradiction here:

For example, I can manifest a conception of a set of integers {1, 2, 3} and determine that the summation of the parts as 6: the former is a conception in toto, and the latter is a conception of that conception in total. — Bob Ross

If a set of integers is 1,2, and 3, aren't the total number of integers 3? If we're listing the set, then we can say the collection is made up of 1,2, and 3, and we don't need the word toto.

for an absolute minimum at y = 2 indicates that f(x) is never negative ys and the limit from the right being infinity tells me that even if the limit to the left is a finite number that the summation of the ys will be infinity.

Again, I would say the concept is finite (that is, bounded), but technically I could be in a state of ignorance or confusion, thusly determining it as indefinite. — Bob Ross

Here is where I also think there is a conflation of words. Bounded does not mean finite. You can have an infinity for example that is bounded by whole integers. All meaningful infinities are bounded. An unbounded infinity, is everything without any defined concept. In the past I've called it "the sea of existence".

Bounded can also refer to the finite. So I could have a set of integers bounded between 1 and 4. Those integers would be 2 and 3. My point in the earlier post was to note that when we speak of meaningful infinity, it is always bounded. It may be bounded by the idea of, "All integers". So that would be an infinite set of numbers that precluded any fractions. This is the same as stating, "All integers less than y=2".

Thus if the following is true:

An infinite content can be determined in total. — Bob Ross

then all meaningful infinities can be determined in total. This again leaves me wondering where toto falls. Again, the overall feeling I get from your essay is more that toto describes the indefinite, or the unknown. The toto number of trees a person can conceive of is an indefinite concept, but one we can conceive of with some type of limit. It is not infinite due to a person's limited life span, but one cannot actually count the number of possibilities.

We can also imagine the idea of an infinite amount of possibilities one person could potentially imagine, even though in reality there are only a limited amount they actually imagine. I could see this as the infinite version of toto that expresses indefinite form. The problem is provability, which of course one can never do with the indefinite.

But again, I'm still not sure we have a clearly defined and applied term of "toto". I think it loses its use in your paper because I believe there is a misunderstanding of infinity and the term bounded. With the idea that all meaningful infinities are bounded, and that we can also bind finite sets, how can toto be used clearly without any ambiguity?

Infinite form and infinite content

This is the realm of sine qua nons (and, in virtue, the principle of regulation): a concept which is repetitive affirmation of negations would be an example of it. This kind of form entails, I must add, only one of its kind as a conception (and not just merely in existence). — Bob Ross

So back to this then, infinite form and content would be all possible forms one could give within all of infinity. This again is the unbounded infinite, or all of existence that one person could form. If you remember our conversation, a form as I'm seeing it would be a "discrete experience". I have largely avoided referencing the terms in my previous paper, as I do not want to distract from yours. But I feel this accurately communicates my intentions easiest, so I will do so here. This is the form within the infinite. So all possible forms would be all possible discrete experiences.

So within all possible forms, you propose a concept that if this concept does not exist, neither can any other concept. Without this discrete experience, no other discrete experience can exist for example. While I am ok with the idea of this, I still am having difficulties seeing how the principle of regulation is this sqn.

Only repeating myself once, you still have the problem of a thinking thing that does not derive. I've mentioned before that you would have to analyze other thinking things besides humans to show that all thinking things derive. At best, you can claim that all humans of a certain intellect derive. I have no problem with this.

At a conceptual level beyond all of this, I would still assert that one must come up with a concept first before one can derive from the concept. The sqn to me would be that one must be able to conceive some form within the unbounded infinite. Without this, no other form can exist within the infinite. From there you could derive the principle of regulation, but I do not see it as a sqn itself. So if you are to assert that the PoR is a sqn, how do you deal with the above concept? Is it not true that the real fundamental is the ability to first conceive of a concept, before one can derive from that concept?

Great work again Bob, I look forward to hearing from you!

Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc.
— Philosophim

How do you know???? — baker

You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact.

Death does afford a peace, in a sense, even if you can't feel it. — Darkneos

If you can't feel it, it isn't peace. It does not afford peace in ANY sense.

You can rest knowing the pain will pass and you won't have to do anything anymore. — Darkneos

No. You don't know anything. You don't get to rest. You don't get ANYTHING. Your last memory will be pain, and that will be the last thing you know. There will be no sigh, no relief, no calmness, no anything. Whatever you have in your last moments will be the last thing you experience.

I think you are giving death less than it is. — Darkneos

No, you are giving death MORE than it is. You think there is something. Some feeling, some assurence etc. There. Is. Nothing. There is not even the realization that there is nothing. There's no you staring into a black void. There's no, "Finally, I'm at rest." You're gone, period.

Why deal with one's pain when they can just quit? You're still missing the point here trying to find something "Wrong" and that's the mistake you make as much as anyone else does. — Darkneos

Because I'm not a coward. Lots of things in life will try to tear you down and end you. All the cells inside of you fight every day to keep viruses and bacteria at bay. They fight to do their jobs, and live. You spit on that. All the people who spent time and effort raising you to continue life. You spit on that. The fact that you have the gift of sentience when so much matter in the universe will never have it. Its absolutely a waste to throw that away when you should fight for it.

Nothing in life IMO is worth working for when one doesn't have to live. — Darkneos

Well no duh. When you're dead, you don't have to do anything. Because you don't exist anymore. You can't even laugh at society. You're just a corpse to be eaten by worms.

You still aren't getting it. — Darkneos

No, I get it FAR better than you. My sister collects and cuts up bodies for a living btw. She's done organ donations, autopsies, etc. I'm very keen to know what death is. She's seen plenty of suicides. They aren't special. She's described decomposition in detail. How your last meal sometimes rots inside, swells your stomache, and has to be purged before cutting into the rotting flesh.

Death is not beautiful, peaceful, or relief. If you want real beauty, peace, and relief, you only find that in life. You will never find that in death. So get out of your morose state, stop feeling sorry about yourself and the world, and start working to actually get beauty, peace, and relief in your life. Looking at death for your such things is cowardly, lazy, and incredibly ignorant.

What you say has merit, but consider this edge case :

A man will be tortured for hours for information he does not have. He will then be killed. Is it reasonable for him to grab at a means to end his consciousness, if he knows all this with certainty ?

Or consider, more typically, a person aware that they are sinking into dementia...Are there states worse than death ? So that death is to be sought ? My position is yes. — Pie

I agree with you. But this is not the OP's case.