My mistake (and I seek forgiveness for it) that I hadn't indicated that. — god must be atheist

No harm done. The point is the same.

Small damages are forgiven, large ones are punished... that's how it should be, and generally speaking, that's how it is done in the society I live in. — god must be atheist

Punishment satisfies the need of revenge that someone demands (and fairly imo) when large damages occur on him by someone else. And that's how justice works I think. Small damages don't need punishment cause they don't trigger so much that desire of revenge to the ones who "suffers" them. Cause exactly they are so small.

Without forgiveness and redemption, hatred will accumulate until people kill each other. — god must be atheist

Without that? Or..

Without judgment social structure would crumble. I do keep to the law, because I fear the punishment after breaking it. — god must be atheist

I think it's still the fear of punishment unfortunately, that does mostly the work for people and societies in general.

Cancel culture is emotionally loaded censorship or even emotional terrorism. — Andrew4Handel

Emotional terrorism. Excellent description. And the way that anyone can take part into it, by just pressing some buttons from his couch, is really scary. Anger is the domain emotion behind all that "movement" imo.

In fact, I think "cancel culture" is about public accountability. — Benkei

If "cancel culture" was executed with the right way it would really be the most useful thing for humanity .And a really great spiritual revolution. But the way it is(and will be) executed from people, makes it (and will make it) one of the most dangerous matters-challenges that humanity will have to face.

Sophistry in pictures and folktales rather than reasoning with coherent concepts and valid arguments. — 180 Proof

Even sophistry is nothing more than a bad form of executing philosophy.

(2nd/3rd order) — 180 Proof

What that means?

Religion is a form of philosophy for sure. But philosophy isn't a form of religion.
Though even using myths, religion still deals with basic existential questions that every human face in his life. Others turn into philosophy for some existential comfort.
It's the way of approaching these questions which is different in religion and philosophy but for sure they have common corners where they meet.
Jesus(if he actually was a historical person) was for sure the most influential philosopher throughout history.

I think he took a look again at it, and realized he missed something important, because the questions as they are have no logic which shows what the first and last letter must be. I believe he was embarrassed and pulled the questions. — Philosophim

That was probably the case.

I've refused to solve it, so I've solved it, just like everyone else who hasn't participated.

I've typed no characters to solve this, there are therefore zero characters I've type in response to it, and there wasn't a first character in my non-response.

To those who say my refusal to respond is a response, I say I'm not responding, but I'm just talking about stuff that I'm thinking about and not trying to solve this puzzle.

Mine is a good response, but not the response anyone was looking for, so there's that problem of course. — Hanover

Man. Wtf? I felt awkward reading this. It was a damn strange post.

Letter5Letter

Except if you mean different characters as the letters in general and numbers. Then

Letter2Letter

*

*

Similarly. It's the most logical approach.

The glaringly bizarre thing about this thread is these people are asserting this whole "ethics is for benefit of others" — Garrett Travers

Yeah, we are full of Mother Teresas here as everywhere else in societies. Ready to sacrifice their lives for the well affair of others.
Weird thing though that with all of them around us, world societies are still full of shit.

every single code of ethics developed over the past few thousand years has been predicated first and primarily on the well-being and flourishing of the individual, and to the benefit of others a secondary; — Garrett Travers

That is the case indeed.Anything else is pure hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is the Lord of our times.

What everyone here seems to be arguing, is that ethics are exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. Whereas I am and have been arguing, that that isn't true. Ethics is primarily an individual pursuit; how could it not be? You can't be ethical to others if you aren't an ethical person privately — Garrett Travers

Don't worry. You aren't the only one who believes that. Being ethical is mostly and for all a work that you have to do with yourself. As to realize why being ethical and doing "good" is the "right" thing to do mostly for your own self! It's a deeply pure Egoistic thing.

To say that someone must be ethical cause someone else says so (God for example) or cause we "ought" to society or to anyone else are childish fairy tales,that can never be taken seriously even from the same people who just think they are good. We ought only to ourselves in this life. And none else.

That's why we see all around us such a huge hypocrisy from people thinking or pretending to be ethical and doing "good" but at the end they are full of shit.
Doing "good" is a constant fight with ourselves in our every day actions .A tough one. It is a continuous exercise and not a permanent state. We can never be sure that we do "good" all the time or that we belong to the "good group" of people. But the effort towards that is what actually matters and what grow us bigger.

You can't force someone to be ethical, by imaginary divine punishment or silly stories about social debt to others and things like that.
It should be a personal choice from the individuals. Only that way it makes sense and it actually works both for the individual and the social benefit.

We ought only to ourselves. To none else. And it's a deeply selfish thing to act good at the very end.The one who acts good receives the most at the end.
Just tell you that cause there won't be later.

Weed.But the actual weird thing is that you find them incoherent without any boost at all.
What exactly is incoherent? That I think that we ought to do good but I disagree with the childish reasons you give for that?

Yes, you ought do as you ought, to whomever you meet. — Banno

Simply ridiculous.
And guess what? My objection isn't that we ought to do good indeed. But the excuses you give are lame. Almost theistic.

An ill-formed answer. So during my one and only life I ought to "whoever".
Hmm..good luck with convincing people with that.

is "because good is what we ought do". — Banno

To whom exactly we ought?

Worm's fest is what happens.

Atheism" : only nature : — 180 Proof

Atheism can take many forms. Nature is just one of them.

Are most people not very philosophical in their thinking and talking? I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. — TiredThinker

Or maybe your thinking and talking is very philosophical. Who knows.
Not that you can make a rule out of it, but yeah I think people who love philosophy is very possible to be weird also. At least most of them.
And that's really great. Normal people are so damn boring.

But the truth is that these unselfish acts invariably protect not the self, true, but the tribe, the family, the nation, the species. In other words, the derivatives of one's own DNA. And the beneficiary is invariably is also a protector of the person who sacrifices for the community.

This is sort of a scenario that plays out this way: "I pay a sacrifice to the community to help the community survive, so then they can protect me and help me survive too." — god must be atheist

At the very bottom everything is an selfish thing, act, even ethics. The problem is that we people prefer the temporal Ego benefit, which isn't that significant and neglect the great long term Ego benefit that we can gain.
We have many "excuses" for doing that but still is totally wrong. Wrong mostly for our own selves.

I think now I got your point .Just realized that the real question actually goes much much deeper.

Seems pretty well to me .No babbling and on point. I focused more on the writing and seems clear and a really nice effort.
If you want my advice go on making "small" sentences (as it seems you do already) and try to avoid unnecessary overanalysis and over explanations. Hit the reader direct. Keep on though.

Viruses are like some necessary ingredient for the whole spectrum of life (to which it belongs too). — Raymond

Exactly.

So, viruses are alive! Naked. Without a naked body. In between the naked nudidity of the virus and the free naked human beauty, live dressed organisms like bacteria, — Raymond

Viruses among others, play a key role in the chain of life in all species. Evolution takes place in them but also evolution uses them as to generate new life. So yeah they surely should be considered alive. Despite how "shocking" that might sound to some.

Your refusal or inability to do this speaks volumes. — Kenosha Kid

More says your refusal to answer my questions, though I keep answering all yours.
Again I tell you that if you want to go by the typical definition of life, viruses meet some criteria, fail in others.
The "evidence" that you ask, are already there.It's just that some don't consider them enough as to declare viruses alive, but others do. So i don't know what more you want me to tell you.To invent more abilities of viruses as proof? Well sorry, but I m not capable of doing that.

Their variations,their structure, their evolution progress and also their key role that they play in the general web of life of species etc are more than enough evidence for me (as for many others too) to consider them alive. You don't. So ok.
I drop it, cause it seems we keep recycling the same things all the time.

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "errors" doesn't it? — Agent Smith

Surely does.

More like a rehearsal of Death, if you remove dreams. We practice it every day till our final premiere.

I've asked you twice to back up the false claim of a scientific consensus that viruses are alive, not according to what one guy thinks the definition should be, — Kenosha Kid

What you don't understand is that it isn't just "one guy" but many many more. You could easily figure it out if you do a little search over the internet. But you insist on thinking that it was just me and now that it is just me and "that guy".

If you want to play with definitions and "by the book", then with the typical existing definition of life, viruses meet some criteria of that definition but yes fail in others. That's why it's still an open issue.

By the way I answer all of your questions but you conveniently forget all mine. So for 3rd time. If you think viruses aren't alive then what are they? Dead??And if we ever discover a virus in another planet would that be considered an indication of life? Yes or no?

With an article that I think you didn't read. The pro argument isn't saying viruses are alive according to current definition of life. — Kenosha Kid

He states that he finds them alive indeed even if the definition doesn't "cover" them. Simply as that.
You were so "shocked" by the argument that viruses are alive and answered you with the article that there are others who consider them alive also. Period. And now you play the definition card?
So now you have met at least two people that consider viruses alive. And if you see at the thread there are others too.

As to close it, since you found it so outrageous and so easily pronounced it non scientific.
AT BEST, if viruses are alive is still an open issue. And I was surprised of that I have to admit, since I was sure that everyone considered them alive before Hanover's article.
As I searched it more still I find the arguments in favor of viruses as alive much stronger than the opposite one. So yes I go on believing it.

Okay, this is a bit like:

ME: What time is it?
YOU: Eight o'clock.
ME: Shit, I'm late! Hang on, the clock says 3!
YOU: I never said it was eight o'clock in this country.

I.e. there's no obvious distinction between being wrong and being tricky. I kinda have a feel for the answer though. — Kenosha Kid

No it isn't. I made it as obvious as I could for you, providing you the initial posts also and now you accuse me of just being tricky.Only as not to admit that you misinterpreted it. I could call your tactic tricky then,since seems you do the same with the article that I provided you and the definition of life. Anyway as you wish.

Ok

And what's your opinion? Is it alive or not according to you?

I have to prove that it's wrong? — T Clark

Yeah you do. Since you accused us of dishonesty and laziness. We didn't say anything at all about your view.

Well I can smell a metaphor here but I'm not sure that I understood the underlying meaning. And what's your thoughts on that (I guess it addressed to "if virus are alive" question right?). If you could clarify it.

I think it is intellectually lazy at least to accept science when it reinforces your fantasies and reject it when it doesn't — T Clark

Where exactly did it happen? At our post exchange I mentioned many times that your arguments are the scientific one and I have no scientific counterarguments. Where did I project with the way that evolution works as you described? We just wonder why to work that way?? And why is there something as natural selection to choose from the first place (that was Wayfarer's question). And if evolution serves a purpose indeed. That's all.

T Clark didn't describe them as just DNA errors, he described them as random DNA errors. Random, in this case, means they don't have any particular direction or goal. Again, you use what supports your vague vision and ignore what doesn't. — T Clark

That random word that you so proudly declare that I forgot in purpose changes NOTHING at all to my meaning. I just wonder if that random errors as you mention have a purpose .Better now? You are so sure that they don't have. How are you so sure?? Science reached there as you to sound so absolutely sure about it?

DNA is set up the way it is. It's set up in such a way that it allows evolution to proceed — T Clark

And evolution is set up as to allow life to proceed.

That's irrelevant to the present discussion. How life began is a different question than how evolution works. Darwin was explicit about that in "Origin of Species." — T Clark

No it isn't irrelevant at all. That's the core of it in fact. And that's what you miss. Evolution's purpose is life. Either you like it or not.
What I wonder from the very beginning of this thread is, if there is a force of life that makes evolution work that way as to serve it or if that happens totally randomly indeed.

If you, Wayfarer, @javra, and Teilhard want to turn evolution into a hugs and kisses spiritual love fest where rocks are conscious and everyone will eventually join with God, knock yourselves out. You guys just want to pick and choose those aspects of science that jibe with your magic-realistic world view and reject those that don't. That's intellectually lazy at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. — T Clark

Chill we don't want to turn evolution into anything. We just share common questions, doubts and ideas about matters that still haven't definite answers.
None of us are dogmatic about it (as you seem to be) and we all mention that our views can't be supported scientifically. We just share common curiosity. That's all.
Who even mentioned that we agree with Teilhard?? Javra just introduced me to him as something interesting and somehow relevant with my OP, not that he agreed with him. So what exactly are you talking about here??

I don't see any problem at all on that, as to use such heavy characterizations as lazy and dishonest.

By the way you repost my response but I don't see any answers to my questions.And you know why? Cause you don't even know. And no one does. Yet at least.
You just say "cause that's how it is". Well excuse us but we are a little more curious about it. We ask why? That's all. Don't crucify us for that "Sin".

Please back this up. The article you cite is a debate between a person saying that viruses don't adhere to the definition of the word "life" and another person who agrees but thinks the word should be redefined to include viruses. From the latter: — Kenosha Kid

There are many more that believe viruses are form of life.
If not then what are they?Dead? Again if we ever find a virus in Mars or another planet wouldn't that be indication of life??
Sorry but I m not backing up on it. I surely consider viruses alive indeed.Even though Hannover's article is a counterargument, I still consider the arguments from the "alive part of view" much stronger.

. I asked you about whether viruses are alive or not, not whether we should redefine what we mean by "life". — Kenosha Kid

And I answered you already.

In response counter to an argument that computers can optimise like evolution does. I.e. it was a counterargument. If you're abandoning it, fine (and good) — Kenosha Kid

As to finish with that. My initial post was that :

Yeah but a computer is manufactured by a living creature. Humans. Virus is already alive. Though from the Hanover's article I see that many doubt that is alive from the very beginning. — dimosthenis9

and after that :
.

Well no it is not will. But still I could never accept these comparisons with computers. Computers are children of the human mind. An alive creature and its mind manufactured them. But computers aren't alive.
I got what you mean and the analogy you use here. But though there are many similarities sometimes I can't accept them working exactly the same. — dimosthenis9

Where exactly i stated that the only reason that I find possible viruses to have some kind of will is not to be humanly manufactured???
I just mention "an alive creature and its mind manufactured them. But computers aren't alive.".
Does that mean to you that I support that everything that humanity created or will create in the future can't be alive or have will?!
If you get that meaning from that then I can't do anything about that.

Sorry but I will never admit something that I never meant or posted just cause you want it. Believe me I would have no problem at all to admit it if I did.
Better let's drop it. We will never agree on that as it seems.

Lots of questions to be addressed in such perspectives (with or without my interpretations of them), and clearly they will fall under the category of mysticism for most. But if you are interested in further exploring such notions regarding evolution’s purpose, these two thinkers’ perspectives might be of help. (Sorry, didn't have the time to find better references for them.) — javra

Thanks for introducing me to these thinkers. Never heard of them before as to be honest.
From a quick read that I did in both of them I found more interesting the Omega point view of Teilhard. Not that I got convinced really, as to be honest, since he attempts somehow to connect evolution's purpose with God as I understood. But he expresses some interesting ideas and issues that I was troubled about.

At least both of them consider that evolution has a purpose indeed. It doesn't say much of course from scientific point of view or providing any real evidence. But in a personal level is good to see that my thoughts and questions about evolution are bothering other thinkers too. Your contribution to the OP is much appreciated.