*wearing my smartass hat*
Some posts are referring to "the good of the species." There is no such concept in biology....everything is driven at the gene level.

The nature of time, and the issue of continuous versus discrete motion, which MikeL appears interested in, is one such key issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the root issue of the OP is not about discrete vs continuous motion per se, rather it is motion itself - and I think MikeL has sort of acknowledged that. It's something that "bothers" me from time to time - the way I phrase it is "what the heck is the difference between two objects that move differently besides the motion itself?" Psychologically speaking, it seems that there should be some way of knowing the velocity of an object (moving in an inertial reference frame, for the sake of simplifying) by isolating the object and getting "intrinsic" information from it. This "information" would represent a "cause" of the motion. The object moving in space would be the "effect".

One angle of attack might be to think about Lorentz contraction. One could argue that the measured length is an "intrinsic" property of the object, and gives away the velocity. The measurement would have to be made over a short time of course, as in a photographic snap, say. But the information gleaned - the length of the object, is not a direct measurement of the velocity. Or is it?....

It is this very attitude which you refer to, the attitude of leaving things out, because predictions can be made without resolving these little paradoxes, which moves us forward into a realm of misunderstanding and self-deception. It is self-deception because some believe that because predictions can be made, the phenomenon is understood, and others such as yourself seem to believe that understanding the phenomenon is unimportant so long as predictions can be made. But the philosophical spirit does not stop with the pragmatic of making predictions, it is the desire to understand. So things which appear as unimportant to the pragmatist, which one might be inclined to "leave out", are very important to the philosopher, because unraveling these little problems, these little paradoxes, is like working on a little puzzle which hides the mysteries of the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that is a stupendously good piece of writing that highlights the differences between science and philosophy. However, I think the issue of thinking about the mysteries of inertial motion could perhaps be fruitful to science - it's a "boundary" issue between science and philosophy, I would say.

The actual nature of motion is something that appears to have received very little attention in philosophy and science. We seem to take it for granted but it's actually quite weird!

I think you are wondering what is it about motion that gives itself away other than the effects of motion....?

I think you ought to at least be able to demonstrate that you understand the argument that science proposes regarding the story of life before you can hope to rubbish it.

The all encompassing "it just happens" theory for everything. — Rich

I think you are making a rather shallow rhetoric argument based on the word "happens" rather than a genuine discourse of engagement with ideas. I am not saying that the behaviour" just happens" - far from it. It just so happens NOW this behavior neatly satisfies a certain effect [apparently a "goal" to human psychology]. That achievement has taken billions of years to errmmm ... happen.
And I should add that the behavior has developed gradually in intensity (generally speaking).

Why does a cell want to preserve itself? — MikeL

It doesn't "want" to. It just so happens that the behavior it engages in DOES so. Such complex things could not exist without a longish term survival ability and then replication. So it's a logic thing. No other set of behaviors would do it (allow a complex thing to exist). Once something can mutate and reproduce, with mutations having an effect on survivability ("memes" they are called in general) you get complex behaviors evolving. It applies to memes in general, not just the genes of life-forms. Dawkins explains it rather well in his books.

hehe

who else among us is ready to accept the most humble and graceful mantle of "philosopher king" that we, the unwashed masses, so sorely and deeply yearn for? — VagabondSpectre

I sometimes fantasize about winning a megalottery and how I would spend it on promoting and experimenting with "good causes". Does that qualify me?

The best form of government is World Government.

Well, what does it mean to say that the past, the present and the future, all, exist at the same time? — TheMadFool

Well they can't exist at the same time, but the intention in meaning is some sort of crossover perhaps. Special relativity teaches us that the order of events is observer dependent.

Another possible intention in saying they exist "at the same time" is perhaps that they exist together in some sort of container. I think general relativity possibly supports the notion of "block spacetime", which is that the whole of spacetime is one gigantic block that doesn't change. It has a philosophical counterpart I believe in "eternalism", which is a sort of democracy of all points of spacetime - they simply exist in and of themselves without a flow of time.

I claim that meaning can NOT be permanent!

Not sure what you mean by "evidence"....

Can meaning ever be permanent? Meaning requires context. Context requires change. Therefore meaning can never be permanent.
Why does context require change? Because otherwise it's not context, it's part and parcel.

not a dude — praxis

You guys crack me up!

Obviously some are more talented than others, or at least have more insight than others. — intrapersona

The guy above is pointing the wrong way!

Furthermore, I suggest that all neutral infinite regresses are homomorphs of "it is what it is".

Can I suggest that "it is what it is" is the seed of an infinite regress that is neither "vicious" or "benign" to use@Mr Bee 's terminology of the topic he started In fact, it is what it is what it is......a neutral infinite regress.

a pretty sound guide — apokrisis

Indeed. That list would form a very sound basis for a new humanist political party IMO
1. Freedom of choice of economic lifestyle on the work-consume spectrum
2. see above
3. Make education all about personal growth, not competition
4. errrrrr dunno about that one actually, neutral I guess
5. Make happiness the utility function and ethos of culture and government , not GNP.

Winning slogan : Don't wait till you're dying, vote Democratic Humanist Today!

I, therefore, find it pretty impossible to justify my political positions to myself because they are probably expressions of self-interest. — Particle thing

Bertie Russell says that if every person pursued enlightened self interest, the world would completely change for the better.

I have never seen a beautiful flower, only beautiful gardens.

The question of this topic has got me wondering about theists - surely they are in no different a position to non theists when it comes to "grounds for morality" ... except for theists who admit to blindly following their religion's stated morality simply because it is in "the book" or whatever.

both spirit and creativity are suppressed throughout one's years in most educational system. — Rich

(Y)

"Wonder" is a better word for intellectual "beauty" perhaps, because it requires cognitive exploration to perceive it.

However, intellectuals are more likely to appreciate visual beauty IMO. Maybe they have more time on their hands?

I'm still having trouble seeing how beauty is intellectual. — Noble Dust

I struggle with that one too I must admit, though I think it might be possible.
Some say the equation "e to the i pi + 1 = 0" is beautiful but I just think it is literally "neat".

The science is a good starting point to embark on a philosophical journey, I suggest. A lot of old philosophical chestnuts can be cracked, if not yet smashed, by evolutionary science now I suggest.

Sometimes evolution has nothing better to do than just fuck about. — unenlightened

(Y)

I never said awe "only" prolongs life.

There was a big article in New Scientist this week about awe. Apparently, chimps get goosebumps during thunderstorms and those pesky evolutionary psychologists think that a sense of awe increases group safety and bonding by temporarily reducing the importance of self (without reducing self esteem). There are experiments on people that neatly demonstrate this effect.

So that's the scientific explanation of a sense of awe. It makes for a nice qualia too :).

I think beauty is related to a sense of awe, and the latter serves to make us feel part of something bigger, which the science says makes us less stressed and live longer.

Could we have the ability to privately annotate posters' profiles with a line or two of comment, so their perceived predispositions and characters can take shape more easily within the mind? Or is it just me that finds it hard to remember much about some virtual identities, despite their sometimes lengthy posts?

You might be right to distinguish forms of "happiness" but I feel you are jumping straight in and playing a word game in order to downplay one form of happiness and bolster another. However, I feel you have got it wrong lexically because "contentment" is not a very good word to describe very pleasurable states. Contentment tends to imply a long term spell of low to moderate happiness. In fact, the C word might well be the one to apply to your "over and above" moral state. Unless it's a really intense long term state, in which case "bliss" would be a good word.

OK. But it was all so long ago and part of expired civilizations that those ancient monuments have a different feel to them. Also, Confederate statuary and other officially located symbols sprang up despite the fact the Confederacy lost. History is supposed to be written by the victors and all that...The cause thrived on despite "defeat" and so there is an extra motive to put that particular aberration to rights.

There is the Acropolis in Greece and the Forum in Rome, both have been around a long time, statues and all. The Greeks and the Romans both had slaves, BTW — prothero

Indeed, but there was not a racial element to the ancients' slavery.

I just think seeing any/all confederate monuments as just a symbol of slavery is historically incorrect — prothero

I guess so. In terms of a spectrum of acceptability, perhaps Lee is towards the more acceptable end - though "more" acceptable does not necessarily mean "acceptable" of course..

No statue can or should remain in situ forever. Can we not all agree on that, as a starting premise?

Extroversion and introversion are not skills.

They are personal preferences. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

They are personality traits actually. "They" say extroverts are happier than introverts, and that introverts often want to be more extrovert if only they knew how. They also say that introverts can be trained to be more extrovert. "They" are psychologists who have performed experiments etc. I think they may be right, in moderation.

Regarding Maslow, it is interesting to speculate on the path (or paths) to the pinnacle of "self actualization". Can just about anybody achieve it? Would it require some sort of special education?

In fact I do not think that the species has evolved towards any more intelligence or capability. — charleton

There are other ways to improve. In fact, it is the cultural aspect of humanity that has proved to be the driver of achievement.

If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept? If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

One could argue, as does Pinker, that humans have improved over the ages. We don't burn witches today. In fact we don't believe in them. Mostly...

If we are a simulation then I suspect our knowledge of mathematics would be deliberately limited by our builders.....