This thread is starting its sixteenth page and the mysteries have not been solved yet. If they could be, I am sure that the leading philosophers would have come up with the answers, but I do believe that we probably all need to make our own unique quests. It does seem that we often have to acknowledge that we remain trapped in Plato's cave.

I admit to confusion, but I think that many try to form definitive answers, and, really, I feel that their approach is more of a philosophical danger, as I have named it.

I have always found Plato's cave to be a useful starting point for thinking of the human condition. I do believe that we are imprisoned in our own experiences, shut out from direct access to knowledge about ultimate reality. I think that it is too easy to start believing that the shadows we and mistake them for being much more than that.

It is strange really because yesterday I was wondering whether to write this thread or one about metaphysics. I was out reading, 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer and that seemed connected to the end of the discussion I was having on the thread about 'what are thoughts ?'
The final part was when you were suggesting that it was best to avoid thinking about supernatural entities, and you proposed naturalism. I began thinking how some of the ways in which ideas are complicated by ideas about the supernatural.

I went on to read Ayer's book yesterday and it looked at some of the ways in which metaphysical ideas about any transcendent reality get in the way. He argues that this is not just about saying that such a reality does not exist, or about telling people what they should believe. He is arguing more for the view that such metaphysical assertions are speculation. He argues that this 'speculative knowledge' is problematic as an underlying argument.

Ayer's approach for thinking is known as logical positivism. I am sure that it has been scrutinised by other people, but it is a starting point for considering the question : What Are We ?

I got a bit confused because I had not come across the Arnish and I have known a guy called Anish. I would imagine it is very difficult to manage without technology. I would miss playing CDs too much, and I couldn't manage without a mobile phone, as most things are dependent on them for most of the things we do. I use mine to read and write on this site. If my phone went wrong I would be rather lost until I got it fixed or got a new one.

I have edited my title to 'What Are We? ' This is the second question in Gaugin's formulation:' Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going'. The initial discussion on the thread was connected to the past and future, but I did not really intend the thread to simply be about considering history or the future of humanity. It is important to be aware that the question ' What Are We?' arose in the middle of the two others. But, I have narrowed down the focus, as an experiment to see if this specific question will be a starting point for any reflections.

Actually, I think that it was really the second question that really interests me too. I am interested in knowing what it means to be a human being. This is a question which goes beyond all the complexity of metaphysics. It does seem that we have developed as complex beings. The religious people have explained in terms of us being in between animals and angels. The Darwinists have looked more at the way we have evolved from animals, although the missing link has not been found.

The only reply which I received last night was about the past and the present. That was not really the way I conceived the thread, so I think I will edit the title, because I was hoping that the thread would be one of reflection on what it means to be a human being.

I will just say that even though I was partly about where is life was going it was not intended to be in competition to yours because I thought about it before I read yours and mine was meant to be more of a general reflection on the human condition.

I got involved in discussion earlier on the topic of ecological problems in the thread on science. I think that it is unfortunate that we wrote our threads at the time when the thread on science is going. will say that as much as I want to see an end to the pandemic I am not convinced that it will truly be over for many years.

I am not Amish, whoever he is. I think that I made it clear that I am not actually against science per se. Of course, I use computers and I am starting to spend more and more time on my phone.

I think that it is true to say that it is about the need for application and regulations of technology, but I don't have complete confidence in many world leaders in doing this. I am sure the approaches vary so much throughout the world. As it is now, I fear that we are on the brink of seeing catastrophic events and effects in the world, as a result of the misuse of science. Climate change is accelerating to such an extent, and from my reading of this, it could mean that conditions become unbearable in some Third World countries. It is also so hard to predict or picture how life will be in our countries in two to three centuries time, and on a much larger scale.

On this site, most of us are from developed nations Many are from the USA, and I am from England. I believe that it is too easy to see things from the narrow confines of our lives, rather than from a more global perspective, and with a view to future generations. I am not an antinatalist but can see that kind of critique as pointing to a possible future which may be extremely difficult for many people, especially when petroleum resources are diminished. I know from some posts that you have written you are concerned for science to be able to address the environmental issues. I do agree with you basically, but I think that it is going to take a lot of work to ensure that science works to resolve the problems which have been created.

I believe that it is likely that scientists probably come from various political angles. Also, funding of science is probably dependent on structures which are interconnected to power structures. I am definitely in favour of addressing ecological threats, but I think that it is very complicated and I feel that the future of the human race is very precarious. Rather just sit back and praise science, it may be that we need to see how we can progress to try to avert some of the hazards which are linked to the way science has progressed, to try to safeguard future humanity and other lifeforms.

I do agree that with you that nuclear weapons are science mis- applied for political reasons. I was not ignoring what you said, but just trying to write a very short summary of potential problems of science. I believe that, in reality, the topic could be so extensive really, especially where the political aspects of science come in.

You speak of the need to orchestrate science definitely there is a need for it to come up with some solutions to problems it creates, like pollution and damage to ecology. Really, I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial?

I think that praising science may be a bit premature because if humanity continues in the direction it is going, in using resources as it had done future generations, and other life forms are likely to suffer, and mass destruction through nuclear weapons presents a potential threat.So, while it appears that science has won on this site, I don't think it is nearly as simple in reality. Even beyond ecology, many of the solutions create problems as well as solving them. The most obvious is the way in which many forms of medication have side effects. This usually does not mean that we would not want to take medication, but often, newer drugs are being created to have lesser side effects.

I think that part of the reason why the tone on this thread is extremely positive towards science is because a lot of people in the world feel that science in the form of vaccines are being used to overcome the pandemic. I am certainly willing to have the vaccine and hope that it provides a solution globally. However, it is not straightforward, or completely clear that the vaccine has solved the problem, with potential mutations. I believe that the battle is not over in any definitive way, and it could be with us for many years to come potentially.

I am sure that science will win on this thread, but it doesn't mean it has won completely in the world. I am not against science, but I see it as mixture of potential for benefit or harm, with a lot of unanswered questions about the future.

Strangely, as much as I like Gaugin' formulation, I don't have any romantic views of early humans living as savages. I don't really know how Gaugin thought about human origins and progress, but I do believe that ancient peoples, such as the Egyptians, were extremely sophisticated. I think that it would be a mistake to see our civilisations as being 'superior'.

If anything, I take the view that, despite our findings about early civilisations through archaeological studies, it is extremely difficult to step into the worldview of the earliest people. I am familiar with Julian Jaynes' 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind' and see this as pointing to the possibility that early human beings' mental processing may have differed from that of humanity now.

In thinking of the future, it is so hard to know where we are going, and on what scale human beings will survive. Will we destroy ourselves on a mass scale through war and exploitation of the environment. It could be that devastation occurs on some level, with pockets of humanity surviving. As for what these human beings may be like, it is hard to know. Will they live beyond the lifespans of the current people, benefiting from the movement of transhumanism or not?

I am sure that 100 years ago people would not have necessarily envisioned life as it is today, in its diversity. So, it is extremely difficult to know what the future has in store for humans, and what life may be like within different parts of the world in about 100 or 200 years time. It feels strange saying this, because we can look back on centuries of history, with the varied developments, but if we think about life since the first and second world war, it seems that changes have been so dramatic and accelerated. It makes it hard to know what will happen in the future, and whether progress will simply continue at the rate it has within the last century.

I fear that we are at the end of civilisation as we know it, but I hope that is just my own fear. For all we know, there could be a whole panaroma of history awaiting us, although my own intuition is that we are the end of some kind of cycle.

Despite having written about history and the future, I am not certain that Gaugin's statement was meant in just this way. I feel that he may also have been thinking about how individuals find themselves and view themselves in relation to the world, and historically. In this way, his three questions are more about our own significance in the grand scheme of life.

I have no definite idea of how long I wish to be part of this forum. However, I can say that it has played a significant value in my life in the last few months. I don't know how I would have coped with lockdown isolation without it. I continue to read and write on it, but with certain reservations when it becomes a field of attack.

I have woken up and found that people are having all kinds of fierce arguments on threads which I have created. I have experienced mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I have felt annoyed, but, at the same time, felt glad that people have even logged into threads which I have written because they are my biggest contact with other people and the real world.

So, I see my participation with the site as being a potential source of stress, but also the best means I have of communication with other people. I will juggle this in my choice about engaging on this site on a longer term. I am here for critical analysis, but get put off when it gets so petty, but try to rise beyond this.

Many people may wish to wonder about the role of nature, and our ability to work with it, for worse or better. Some people write threads and get no replies whatsoever, and it is probably a bit of the law of the jungle here on this site, as in the world of nature which you describe. But, I am inclined to think your question of nothing being wrong is not strong enough, because many can see so much which is calling for attention.

Some ot these issues may be connected to ones being addressed within the one focusing on science.I find that each time I write a thread discussion, some of the issues are already being explored in other threads already, I do believe that yours is important for considering the question of how we should consider our role in trying to find solutions to the problems which face the human race, in the struggle for survival.

I think that we have to go beyond any potential paranoia about the site. Each one of us comes with our sets of values, and shortcomings. As far as I can see, this site tries to be as fair and open towards diverse ideas, as possible. What more can we ask for?

However, as I have just looked back as I am writing this, and I think that some people would like it to be less open, so, in that sense, I don't know what to say, and it all goes back to biases, and the social and political construction of ideas. I appreciate this site for what it is now, but I am aware that at some point, I may feel attacked to the extent where I feel a need to withdraw from it, in order to retain a sense of personal integrity and right to retain my own ideas, as a free human being.

I don't wish to derail the thread, and I have absolutely no bad feelings towards Banno, but I do wonder what you mean by winning? Is it about arguments being more creditable? I would be surprised really if anyone, including the most evangelical religious believers, were completely opposed to science.

However, I must admit that I was a bit surprsised to discover recently that one of my closest friends still believes that Adam and Eve were literal people. So if I ever have a party, I wish that Banno, you and others could be present, for some lively discussion.

Despite what I said, I think that it is right to question any site we are logging onto and writing on. We need to question what we are getting involved in rather than doing everything blindly.

I most certainly hope that your thread is far from over, because from my perspective you are raising important questions. I wonder if you should have put 'poll' in the title. I am just raising questions about your title because I do think that the topic could have received more replies rather than just from myself and one other person. However, it may be that the responses we get do depend partly on the dynamics of the forum at any given moment. But, at least this response will keep it in the agenda for now...

I am a bit surprised that you think that what is important is whether Banno is winning to be the essential issue. Surely, science and all other methods of investigation, and of knowledge, as serving humanity, are far more important than proclaiming Banno as the ultimate expert. Personally, I think that we need to go beyond egos, and praise, and look to what works in the development and use of ideas and knowledge.

I find your thread is important but I do wonder about its title. It queries whether nothing is wrong. Of course, it's your thread but the wording of your title does not seem powerful enough to me, because rather than the question of whether we could say nothing is wrong, we could even go in the other way, and ask is everything wrong?

I think that you are right to see science as a tool rather than as end in itself. It involves investigations based on values rather than being embraced as a reality in its own right. It seems to me that while we may turn to science to seek solutions to problems, especially the climate crisis, it was the pursuit of science, as a way of triumphing over nature and ecology, which may have contributed to the problems which humanity are facing.

Science is extremely important, but perhaps it has been placed on a pedestool. The wording of this thread is interesting and I wonder whether it was done intentionally, with the idea of 'praise' being given to science. The idea of praise was often given to God, in the hands of religious believers. Could it be that God has been dethroned, but with science replacing the idea of the transcendent?

But, the question is whether science will be more helpful in sorting out the mess we are in, especially climate change. Science can formulate and provide evidence, but that is interrelated to the political agendas which are override the use of this knowledge.

I think that looking at problems from various perspectives and angles helps, rather than being locked into one specific point of reference, helps one avoid being too narrow.

It is interesting to hear that you feel that you could not express your opinions except as anonymously. I am not anonymous and even have my photo on display, because I feel that I have so little platform of any identity or expression of ideas at all. It is such a contrast of experience.

I do believe that you have raised some important questions on to the site. However, all your questions about ownership are making me wonder if you are wishing to seek to scrutinise it so much, rather than appreciating it for what it is.

Yes, I like Carseat Headrest. We seem to like some of the same music, especially some fairly obscure bands. I played 'Infected' by The The last night, and I have been listening to a band which formed in the 1980s, The Alarm.

I hear you mentioned Zoom and I am sure if a speaker was introduced in that way a lot of people would be very pleased. However, the introduction of Zoom on this site is my worst fear. That is because I don't want to end up engaging sitting on my unmade bed, in my cluttered bedroom. It is all very well for people who can appear in their designer homes. Also, speaking on Zoom might appeal to some, but not everyone.

I know that you are only speaking of Zoom as a possibility for the speaker, but once Zoom is introduced it tends to become the dominant mode. Most groups I would like to do, like art and creative writing are often only available by Zoom, and I wonder to what extent this will continue beyond the pandemic. So, if Zoom was introduced on this site I think that in time most of the discussion may take place in that way, as that is the way life is going.

I have always worried about the state of the world, but often feel a bit powerless. I have been on various marches and try to keep as politically aware as possible.

I do think that we need to be aware of what the scientists say, but it does seem that climate change is escalating. Even with the pandemic, it seems that so many new variants are arising that it is difficult to know how effective the vaccines will be.

I find it easy to get demoralised, as it does seem that nature is bringing us some tough things. At times, I do fear for the fate of humanity, not just through climate change but war and nuclear destruction.

But, I try to keep positive, as I do believe that we can make a difference individually in some ways. I do believe that there are many people in the world who do wish to work positively to try to sustain a planet which is inhabitable for future generations. One of the biggest dangers may be if we start to see ourselves as being the last of humanity, possibly creating a self fulfilling prophecy, and just focusing on our own survival needs recklessly. But, of course, this is complex when people are struggling and suffering in our times.

I think that you have a great idea for a thread because climate change, the pandemic, social inequalities are such big issues. I think that many in the world probably feel so overwhelmed by the immensity of all these problems.

I am of the view that we should most certainly do our best to address these problems. The biggest difficulty is that life is so unpredictable. For example, a couple of years ago no one would have expected the last year's events of the pandemic. It appeared as remote virus in China, and swept across the globe, affecting so many lives, and, even now, we don't know what is going to happen next. Nature will take its course, but are we just going to be swept along like passengers on a train which is about to crash?

So, the problem is that life is not always as predictable as we expect, but perhaps we need to wake up to this, and do our best individually, and on a social level to try to address the problems which are upon us.

I have always felt that time was more like a dimension, one of the ones beyond the three, but they are all interconnected and the three dimensional realities we experience are within the fourth dimension of time. I once read a book called 'Man and Time' by J B Priestley, which suggested that time can be viewed from the perspective of eternity and, in that context, the future may affect the past, challenging the way in which we usually understand the past to affect the future. I am not sure whether this makes sense, but it is interesting to wonder if time simply flows in one way, even though it appears to progress in that way.

I do agree that CBT is best used in conjunction with medication rather than instead of it. But, one newer development is online CBT. When a therapist told me she was leaving her job to work in the development of online therapy I was very sceptical, but I suppose it may help people before they get to the point of needing anything more, and I have found that just reading about habitual thinking, like in mindreading, black and white, as well as catastrophic thinking make a lot of difference in the interpretation of daily events.

I am not sure how much cognitive behavioral therapy does work on unlearning depression, but it does enable critical thinking about the way we view our experiences. I have worked with cognitive behaviorial therapists when I worked in an inpatient therapies unit, but the focus was more behavioral. However, that may have been because most of the patients were in hospital for obsessive compulsive disorder, so had programmes designed by therapists designed for this. However, I have been impressed by CBT, especially the ABC model. Did CBT come into your cognitive science course?

I do agree that it is important to unlearn misery because misery can be such a rut. Perhaps, that could even be a goal in the psychological treatment of depression.

I am probably not speaking of some kind of danger, as if we are going to come to harm through such thinking in such a way. I am speaking more of a 'philosophical danger' if such a concept makes sense.

I believe that the biggest danger is that when we are thinking about the self, whether in terms of Cotard's view or in other ones , to start thinking of the self as an entity as if it is in a box or a container.

I found what you have written about as interesting because I have often wondered about whether we can really say that the self exists. I have come across some Buddhist accounts which certainly challenge the idea of the self. I think that this is connected to the nature of impermanence, especially that of ego consciousness.

However, Descartes saw his own identification of the 'I' as evidence for the self, and most of us do have a sense of continuity of a self throughout our life experiences. But, we can question the nature of this self. It may be more of a construct perhaps, in establishing personal identity.

I wonder if rather than looking back with almost a sense of nostalgia to previous times on the forum, it is worth thinking how we can all work to make the forum a better place for exchange of ideas.

I have looked at the shoutbox several times while it was in the lounge and couldn't make much sense of it all. I read how some people seem to view it as central to the forum. I am a bit confused because it just seems to be a disjointed jumble, so what is the shoutbox meant to be, or is it just for people to say anything about anything?

I can see your purpose of naturalistic explanations. What I see as being a particular problem is when people make particular arguments which depend on certain ideas about the supernatural. Being by nature a bit of a 'woo woo', mystical psychonaut, I am inclined to contemplate all kinds of possibilities, but I am aware that these are only speculation, so I prefer not to use these as a premise or foundation. I think that I can live with uncertainty, and I do wish to be able to formulate arguments on the basis of what is known, rather than the unknown.

Thanks for your reply, and hopefully, the discussion we had on this thread will be useful for the topic here. So, I will get out of the discussion on sports because, really, I prefer philosophy...

I do struggle a bit with methodological and philosophical materialism, but I am hoping that I will get there at some point. If anything, I do smile when I look at certain books and begin to think, 'woo woo'. I am serious about my questions, but try to keep a certain amount of humour.