Put simply, an AI has to be given instructions that, inter alia, includes instructions to override these instructions. I don't think this is possible because imagine I include a line in the code of such an AI that goes: Override all instructions. — TheMadFool

You're right, this is not possible. Since we're drawing the comparison to humans, let's do so all the way and say: This is as if you're performing brain surgery on yourself. You will die, just like the AI will trash itself if it overwrites itself.

An AI with the ability to self-modify will need to have two independent sections of code: One static, immutable, the core of what it is and what it does and a dynamic one which it can freely edit. This too is in resemblance with humans: Biology and mind. Biology is static, set in place, defining our function. Mind is dynamic, a different world where through thought we can construct whatever we want, without having to fear that we mess up our biology.

If we were to take another step further there is actually a way for AI to safely edit even it's very core - and the method would be the same as how we humans do it - through a second party.
Like how we get a brain surgeon to operate on our brain because we can't do it ourselves, the AI would simply have to copy itself and make the change from the outside.

Even if there seems to be choices (for surviving, entertaining, relationships with others, and even killing yourself), there really isn't. It's either follow the game (obstacle course with some choices there), homelessness, hack in the wilderness, or die. — schopenhauer1

I would like to understand, what in your opinion, the alternative is?

To me, the game of life is full of choice. Yes, there are certain rules to it but I fail to understand how nonexistence is supposed to be an alternative that offers any kind of freedom. Either you exist, or you don't. How are you supposed to choose whether you want to partake if you do not exist? In this way too, it's a lot fairer to be born first and still have the choice to opt out, as to never having a choice at all.

And yes, life does have to sustain itself. From a human point of view, we who have engaged ourselves in such a complex system of ethics and morals - that we may fill whole online forums with them - may view some of these aspects of life as cruel, as painful, as suffering. But if you zoom out a little from the egocentric human perspective that we're stuck with and view the bigger picture, it's all perfectly fair. It's so fair that even if we ruin this planet and destroy ourselves, life will strive and allow everyone who lives to play the game.

Ultimately, what solution does not being born give? An absence of life.
What do we call an absence of life? Death.
What is the root of all suffering? Death. It's either "I can't live like this." or "I will die from this."
So in conclusion, the idea of not being born serves the very poison it's trying to cure.

And all the days of Adam that he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. — Genesis 5:5

Clearly factual.

In some spiritual systems, there is the notion of karma, which is the law of cause and effect, or 'as you reap, you will sow'. This involves our own experiences in the process of causal chain. The way I think that this could work is that our own subconscious processes experiences in such a way that our guilt and other emotions come into play in drawing experiences towards us. — Jack Cummins

Karma means and is to be understood as "action". There is the common misconception that karma works like a bank account, I do good and the universe magically deals good back to me at some later date. This is wrong. The good I get through karma is the direct result of my action. If I treat someone well, they'll think better of me and treat me well in return. If I treat someone bad, they'll breed animosity and treat me bad in return. Cause and effect indeed. But there's nothing in particular that "draws experiences" towards us in any mystical way.

So, I wonder about the role of our own consciousness in what becomes manifest in life. Intention affects our behaviour, but I do think that it may go beyond this and intentionality and thought may have more dramatic effects, involving layers of the subconscious. — Jack Cummins

This is what Hermetics and followers of various occult beliefs call "alchemy" or "magic". Will leads to action, action leads to manifestation. Inbetween is transmutation, the process of using the laws of nature to change one thing into another. The idea here is that with enough will, awareness and knowledge about the law anything can be achieved.

A trivial example of what this really means:
My will is to buy a car.
I transmute the resources I have (time and energy) into labour.
Labour transmutes into money.
Money transmutes into car.
This is how intention becomes manifest.

Yes: Because in the case of someone being forced to play a game, there is a life they’re missing out on. There is a consequence to them being kidnapped by the villain. Not so if they never existed. — khaled

This captures my problem with the analogy. There is some experience to be made outside of the villain's game. As far as we know, that is not the case for life. Either you play the game of life, or you don't. There is no alternative, no game of mumbo jumbo which you get to play if you opt out of the game of life.

This then answers the question of freedom as well: If the only choices are to play or not to play, then with the ability to commit suicide, you have all the freedom in the world.

Would you chill out? Whether Banno gaslighted you or not, this adds nothing to the thread, it doesn't belong here.


I don't think weaponizing language is an immediate feature of philosophy, rather than a consequence of how some people tend to debate. When do we use weapons? When we want to overpower someone. We do the same with language if we want to proclaim ourselves or our opinion as superior.

There's arguments and there's arguments. Quarrels and lines of reasoning — Banno

This.

I haven't seen any sensical counter-arguments to Efilism. — RAW

I don't think you'll ever see a sensical counter-argument. You've chosen how you wish to perceive the world. Likewise, I won't ever see a sensical argument in support of Efilism (or Antinatalism for that matter).

I believe you that the world you live in is a terrible and cruel place full of suffering. The world I live in is not though.

Because she still wants to learn some words and dialectical intercourse before finishing her book. This site makes you know people and philosophical talk. A small but substantive part of her book cares about this wonderfull endavour. Besides physics, the brain. economy, biology (Lamarckian style), art, western globalization, cosmology, gods, etc. Eetc. I can tell you! Her question to the god of wisdom would probably be: WHY? — LaatseMaal

Marco is a male name, Marco.

Dear God, why has Prishon aka Marco not given up on this forum yet?

Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive? — RAW

That is your subjective experience. Many others have a very different experience of life. In regard to my experience, I can not agree with a single one of those statements.

The answer is simple though: Everyone knows where the "exit" is. No one can force anyone to play the game. Just don't go assuming that others subscribe to your world view and want to take any part in the ideas that Efilism comes up with.

I think what we mean with deep philosophical problems are questions, with no definite answer, which would have an enormous impact on how we perceive and think about the world. "Ultimate truth" being the prime example of this.

A "deep" question is usually a difficult decision. It's deep because we can "sink" into it. We can put a lot of thought to it, perhaps we may never even arrive at an answer at all. A deep bottomless ocean - that's how I see the metaphor.

Velocity is measurement of two positions. The positions of particles change. But that goes hand in hand with two different times. But which of the two is fundamental? — Philofile

How does the position of a particle change?

Position = Measurement of space
Time = Measurement of time
Velocity = Measurement of motion

If there is no motion, even over an infinite period of time there is no change in position.

But then, if practicing philosophy helps to solve problems and to communicate with others, isn’t it a helpful tool towards approaching what we mentioned? — leo

Yes, philosophy can be a helpful tool. Perhaps let me rephrase: Philosophy can give us answers - but only ever in the human context. When it's about "truth" and "reality" though, I - perhaps others as well - try to peer beyond the human context. Hence, philosophy holds only speculation but no answers about truth and reality because we can not get out of this human context.

It can probably offer a bit more in terms of happiness - but then there are easier ways to find happiness than mulling your brain over it, over and over again.

As for freedom, that's basically just a buzzword for me. Aside from the physical sense, i.e. not being locked up behind bars, it has no real meaning.

It's a bit of a paradox for me. I don't think philosophy has much to offer in terms of truth, understanding reality or happiness. Of course, that's a conclusion that I made through philosophy as well - so it's not exactly useless either.

I reckon what philosophy can teach fairly well is imagination and communication. It's a practice of different perspectives. In the end it's just a pastime for me. It's engaging to think, to formulate and solve problems. I might as well be playing games or watching TV. I opt to read books and philosophize instead because in a few cases, the insights of philosophy may be a bit more practical for when I'm not playing games.

I'll agree to the last statement. Truth, reality, happiness are connected. They're one and the same desire.

You think animals are used only to eat them or as a tool? — TenderBar

That is the origin of their use, yes. The impact they had on humanity, the improvements they brought to everyday life, got them deified along the line.

There ought to be another law about "Godwin"... — Wheatley

As an online discussion grows in the number of Hitler references, the probability of mentioning Godwin's law approaches 1?

I said something about stupidity. Hitler wasn't stupid. Neither was Mao, nor Stalin. So I'm asking the question, if 'stupidity' is the enemy of the good, then how come these obviously dreadful human beings weren't just stupid? — Wayfarer

Many stupid people engage in war. No war is started by a stupid person though.

These animals that have been intertwined with human culture all have/had a strong practical implication on human life.

Herding cattle became a major food source once agriculture was established.
Dogs and Eagles were used for hunting purposes.
Cats were used to control pests in settlements and food storage.

Disagree.

1. Stupidity is subjective.
2. Stupidity has always been a companion of mankind.
3. Stupidity has been necessary for mankind to thrive.
4. Stupidity is inevitable.
5. Stupidity is incurable.
6. Stupidity is not an issue.

But our minds aren't so malleable that you can just believe anything are they? You can't be a masochist by choice for instance. — khaled

Are you sure about that?

Consider how we go through life, from our days in the cradle to our dying bed.
We come to life as basically a blank slate. So unfamiliar with the world outside the womb that many of us will do this crying, utterly confused as we are taken away from the warmth of our mothers.

Consider your first years in life. You know nothing. Not to crawl, not to walk, not to speak. You only know how to cling to your mother and suck on her teet. Our childhood is all about learning what the world contains and how we can live in this world. We do so through experiencing the various situations life throws at us. From the education of our parents to the socialization with our friends. This is also what develops our mind, our psychology. The experiences we make are what act as our basis for decisions in the future. These are psychological habits - the way we tend to act in certain situations, the way we tend to think, the way we tend to see the world.

In this way, you'll know not to mess with fire. Either because you've experienced it first hand or because someone taught you that you can burn yourself when you mess with fire.

Or to pick up the example of a masochist: While there is no definite consensus on why people turn masochistic, isn't it reasonable to think that there must have been an experience where the individual made a choice to associate pleasure with pain? To view their pain as pleasure rather than suffering? Perhaps the individual was suffering through a relationship - but more than the pain that their relationship caused, they dreaded the thought of being alone - so they sunk themselves into their desire for the other and found pleasure in the pain. They embrace their masochistic tendencies.

Perhaps then later in life they are broken apart and the individual learns that being alone is not all that terrible. If at this point, they realize their habit of viewing pain as pleasure, they may associate the habit with the delusions which they had about being alone and drop the behaviour all together. On the other hand if they are to assume that this is an integral part of their being, then they most certainly will not change and carry their habits onward.

Now, it does make sense to try to put a label on these habits to some degree - in order to be able to talk about them. However, as I said before, strictly talking in terms of psychological models and category fails to recognize the infinite complexity that these "constellations of habits" may have due to the highly individual experience of origin.

Is it like that because you think it's like that? Or is it actually like that? — khaled

Our belief is based on what we perceive. But what we perceive is also based on what we belief. — Hermeticus

I think like that, therefore it actually is like that.

I'd say it's a bit of a mix. Our belief is based on what we perceive. But what we perceive is also based on what we belief. Selective awareness.

Generally, I consider the psyche to be ever changing. It's too flexible, too impermanent to make a general sort of classification of "This person is of the type XYZ". The traits themselves may be discovered, in the sense that someone at some point noticed certain behaviour and labeled it with a term. Once labeled, it can easily happen that other people associate themselves with that particular trait. That is however a momentary observation.

A classification like that fails to capture the whole scope of the human psychology, as well as failing to acknowledge that our states of mind, our thoughts and moods, yes even our persona, our very idea of self, are not permanent.

A tool transcends the physical limits of an organism, allows an organism to do what their bodies can't. For example, a tiger can use material at its disposal to do more than what its claws, fangs, and strength permit, that would be tool-making. — TheMadFool

My point exactly. How is a tool going to allow a tiger to transcend his capabilities? Is it going to carry a butcher knife in its maw? Seems impracticable consider it has claws and fangs that do the job just as well.

Tool making? Attacking/defending/foraging/etc. can be vastly improved with tools. Granted that some animals know how to fashion tools, Caledonian crows are capable of meta-tools, but none have learned it from humans. In fact, it's the opposite; as you said, — TheMadFool

Even the aspect of tool making is only practicable for a very limited number of species - mostly Hominids. A majority of animals can not grab tools like we do. At most they'd be able to use a stick like the Caledonian crows do. I feel like animals that can use tools in a sensible matter already do so - all other animals come with their tools attached to their bodies - claws, teeth, physical prowess.

Ok but my point still stands! No animal has been documented to have learned life-lessons from a human. — TheMadFool

In a similar reasoning to Rileys reply: Why would they? What life-lessons could they possibly learn from us? How to drive a car? How to philosophize?

We're way in over our heads in that regard. Our society, especially our rich socialist nations, have made it harder to starve than not to starve (this being an exaggeration). We ponder over all sorts of "problems" these days because the only real problem - survival - has been solved for us. You said it yourself as well:

much of the phronesis (practical wisdom) our ancestors had about plants, animals, nature's rhythms, so on, has been irretrievably lost. I wouldn't be wrong in saying that in some respects, a modern person knows less than a hunter-gatherer forebear. — TheMadFool

We've learned these life-lessons from nature. Then we forgot them. Animals still know these life-lessons. And they are constantly learning to adapt to the ever increasing presence (and threat) of humans. My point being: We have very little to teach to animals but a lot to learn from them.

Well, no. Human level language equips us to transcend instinct, for example it enables us to consider "what if" questions, it allows us to consider alternatives, it allows us to pass on knowledge obtained through that kind of thinking and thereby to build on progress made by others. — Daemon

There's two ways to look at this. Consider how language must have formed back in the day. We went from random noises to words to complete and ever increasingly complex sentences. This obviously started out as instinct, warning signals like monkeys do. It evolved from there but I'd argue that much of the same function is retained. The ability to consider a multitude of scenarios ("what if") beforehand is an excellent tool for survivability. I'd guess the truth lays somewhere in the middle. This ability is likely able to overwrite instinct - but at the same time it is an instinct. It's not like you have to try very hard to think at all.

Birds, especially. — James Riley

The most underrated animal intelligence there is! I'm fascinated how clever our feathery friends are. Emotionally as well.

I once picked up a crow with an injured wing to nurture it back to health. As soon as the second day, the crow was following me around like a dog. Turns out crows love to cuddle and this particular one used every opportunity to jump on my shoulder and snuggle up against my head. What struck me the most though was communication. Not just that it would respond to the human "CAW!"s I exclaimed at him, after a week or so, we've established communication between each other. The crow knew how to signal me it was hungry amongst other basic things like "Hey wait!" if I was getting too far ahead on one of our strolls or "Give me attention!" if it just felt like hopping on my shoulder and cuddling again. In turn it understood when I was signaling to follow me, when it was feeding time and so on.

What I find intriguing is the learning ability of humans. Our intelligence enables us to study animal behavior and then adapt their life-skills for our benefit. No other animal I know of does that, right? — TheMadFool

Animals may not study our behavior the way we study animal behavior but a lot of animals certainly adapt to humans and use humans for their benefit.

You'll see this especially in animals that live in or near urban settlements. In Asia there are colonies of macaques absolutely thriving from tourism, snatching whatever they can from dimwitted tourists.

Likewise many mammals like badgers and foxes opt to dwell in urban settings. Living conditions may be complex but food is available in abundance.

Once again crows: They'll drop nuts on the street, waiting for cars to crack them open so they can get that delicious snack inside.


Also, this time unrelated to humans, I want to give another prominent example of animal intelligence: Elephants. The matriarch of a herd will spend all her life learning and teaching essential information to her herd. From the best feeding places, to places to avoid, to tricks that allow an elephant to get that juicy fruit on the very top branch of the tree. Along with some apes, they also bury their dead, which I find fascinating. Makes me wonder if the act of burial is really purely religious or if there is some instinctive social behaviour mixed in there.

What is it that makes language so useful? — Wheatley

Just imagine a world where Homo Sapiens doesn't invent language. We'd still be in the stone age. Other Hominin species had bipedalism, tools and fire long before us. Language set us apart from all these other species. It's the basis of every breakthrough invention ever since our emergence. From agrarian culture to computers and quantum science today.

1. See the problems that have been pointed out already. Good and bad are far too subjective to serve as a reasonable premise for a generalized statement.

2. Disagree. Of course it's in the best interest of a parent to give the best possible basis for their offsprings life - but ultimately having "a good life" lays in the responsibility of the child, just like I am responsible for having a good life for myself.

3. The good-life/bad-life problem applies here as well. Furthermore, the possibility of good life is not something determined by fate before birth. Circumstances dramatically affect us but ultimately it's our actions that lead to a good or bad life.

4. See 3

5. See 2

6. See 3

7. See 2

In a way legitimizing drugs. — TheMadFool

Huxley having done a fair amount of experiments with psychedelics as well, perhaps his ulterior motive was simply to sell both governments and consumers on the idea to solve all their problems with drugs :D

Did Aldous Huxley take a page out of Indo-Aryan culture. What if, what Huxley predicts already happened, a failed social expermient lost to history? — TheMadFool

Most certainly. Huxley was a great fan of Indian philosophy and published various articles on the Vedanta school.

Soma was a huge part of Indian culture. The earliest hymns of the Rigveda mentions it almost as often as the major deities of the time. In fact it was so significant to early Indian belief that the mixture itself was considered a deity and it's psychedelic nature likely went on to inspire much of the latter mythology.

I'm not sure if Soma really ought to be considered all bad in Brave New World either. It's a double-sided coin. Yes, it is used to control the masses. But on the other side, it's what makes that dystopian society bearable for the masses.

There will be byproducts, some beneficial, others harmful beyond imagination. It's impossible to predict what the future holds. What now? — TheMadFool

Now we wait until transhumanism lets us predict what the future holds so that we make no further mistakes in the field of transhumanism ;)

I think there's a sort of golden rule when it comes to humans and technology: Any technology will be used and abused in a way that wasn't intended.

Since transhumanism aims at the limits of human beings, there may be limitless potential there. The concept in itself is intriguing to me. With the knowledge of how to adapt an organism, it seems like the obvious next step to bring forth artificial evolutionary change rather than wait on the slow process of biological evolution.

The great concern remains with my first statement. Generally I am in support of transhumanism - but I have no doubt that somewhere down the line someone would do something awful with it. It doesn't have to be intentional either. We often misjudge the causal effect of our actions.

On some very basic level, we define things through what they aren't. We need to compare X with not X to know what X is.

If you were born with no senses, with no way to compare yourself to the outside world, you would have no concept of self.

1 (or any number) in math is useless by itself. It needs the entire set to put it into context.
1=1 is true but it says nothing about what 1 stands for at all. With 1+1=2 though, by comparing it with something else, we suddenly know what both of them stand for.

Even the whole set of numbers only becomes useful when it's put into the framework of language.
1+1=2 says nothing about our world. The statement by itself represents nothing other than the statement itself. But if I put one and one unit of apple together and I then have two apples, it gives a physical purpose to the formula as well as making apples countable.

Our reality, or at the very least our perception, is a system of relations. Without this interdependence nothing really works or makes any sense.

The burger is a joke about how materialism would see the origin of mind. But this is not our take on it. I thank you for your critique and will introduce the word modern materialism in the connection with the burger to make the distinction more clear. Our own point of view is that the world is more a form of idealistic monism. Since materialism and idealism are both forms of monism there was potential for confusion here, I haven't thought about it. — FalseIdentity

The burger was not my point. The burger was me catching on to the burger joke.

My point was that you fail to give any argument why materialism might be wrong and why your theory might be right.

If this is for Youtube, maybe you should try structuring this whole presentation differently. If you want to engage people on a thought experiment, instead of just throwing them straight into an imaginary world where my mind is a burger, try enticing them first. Why would I want to consider your idea? What's the problems of materialism? What solutions does your idea offer? How does it work out?

Of course, there are those nasty intellectually picky people that doubt things can magically appear out of nowhere. A further disadvantage of the theory is that if things can come from nowhere then maybe they can go back to nowhere too. — FalseIdentity

How did we get from burgers to things magically appearing? You got me confused from the introduction.

To explain this better let's first imagine that mind and matter are in reality the same. Then become aware that mind and imagination are infinite. If the world is made up of just thought there is nothing like non-thought and hence a true void is impossible.
To understand this better imagine a mind containing every world you can dream of. And not just as thought but as real matter like you know it. — FalseIdentity

Are you trying to explain here why burgers and our mind are the same? Then how does imagining the mind as a burger explain why the mind is a burger? I don't see an explanation here. You're just detailing your initial statement.

Our theory is that directly before the big bang the source mind, God's mind voluntarily reduced and simplified itself. It shrank to the most simple and most easily understandable form available: a point. Call what remains a splinter of god. It is a catastrophe because the splinter lacks almost all of God's infinitely rich thoughts and complexity. — FalseIdentity

How do we get this theory? What's the basis of it? So far there's nothing in here that backs up mind=matter, so this comes off as some kind of fantasy origin story.

I'll leave it at that for now. I'll continue once there is an actual explanation why my mind is a burger.

I'm pretty sure every principle of eastern philosophy is also considered and/or represented somewhere along the line of greek philosophy. Maybe I'll write up a detailed comparison if I find the time but it's going to be a long write because I literally mean every principle.

A glaringly obvious example, just to illustrate this, is Stoicism - it's basically Buddhism without Buddhist terminology.

Both Greek and Eastern philosophical schools had this touch of being scientific. They relied on what they observed in the natural world and put up various theories of how it all worked. Their texts are full of intelligent discourse and dialogue. The Upanishads themselves proclaim to be scientific: This is not speculation but verifiable, an established method. Follow the method and you will get the result.

The big shift between east and west really did come with the Abrahamic religions. It shows in the scriptures as well. The Bible is hardly philosophical in nature, it reads like an ancient epic instead. Gilgamesh comes to mind. Some history muddled together with fantastical stories of gods and men.

The only reason I see that the Tanakh is revered at all is tribalism. The God of the hebrew bible is scarily brutal and vengeful, favouring the Israelites over all of his other creation and promoting them, only them, as the children of god. Historically, I think this might have been propaganda at it's finest, used for unity among the tribes.

I suspect that Jesus himself was a philosopher of sort. He went a fair bit in that stoic/buddhistic direction. Either way his preaching led to many improvements. A more merciful god that accepts everyone. Without them, I doubt the Abrahamic religions would be as widespread as they are today.

I'd say the Quran also had a more philosophical touch than the Tanakh. But in the end I feel like all of those books, being compilations of various texts, suffer from not being selective enough in what to conclude. The wisdom they have to offer is often overshadowed by dogma and doctrine.

1. That just like any other phenomenon in the history of histories of human civilizations -- science is cyclical. No one can stop this as a natural occurrence. Length of time is not an indication of success, if you get my drift. — Caldwell

I don't see this at all. Imo science has been on the rise for 8000 years now. It has to repeatedly reinvent itself. At times it may have become stagnant, sometimes there were rapid breakthroughs - but that's just in the nature of science.

2. That violence can defeat science. There is a tipping point after which, it's just all decay. — Caldwell

What do you mean by that? Science is a concept. A framework for building knowledge. You can "defeat" scientists, people who advocate science - but the concept itself is untouchable.

Not at all. That is not the decay we are talking about here. Worship, belief without justification, and blind indoctrination? — Caldwell

Is that what you understand as decay then? Again, I don't see that at all. Worship, belief without justification and blind indoctrination existed before science and have been declining as the scientific method evolved.

Indeed, what we do have is something like a "common reality". Through our common biology, we can confirm that we experience roughly the same things. This alone does not make do for rational ground though. Humans used to live on a flat disk until their common reality changed.

Self-deception imho is an integral part of human being. The topic of death does very well to illustrate this.

Either it's as you say and there is no downside to death - in which case our survival instinct would be a form of self-deception.

Or there is a downside to death, in which case your proclamation that there is none is an individual self-deception on your part.

So if we are to deceive ourselves either way, I might as well choose my delusions based on merit.

My only point might be that what is good for an individual in their quest for happyness, can create a problem for a world that needs to deal with reality.The religious you might agree are not dealing with reality and it shows at the voteting both --think Trump, and the many many hate groups who vote for him, including the religious right wing. You might consider another drug. — boagie

The only option available to us is a subjective experience of reality to begin with. I believe the problems we encounter as a collective whole have their very root in failing to acknowledge that how we perceive the world is highly individual. This isn't exclusive to religion but shows wherever humans interact with each other - from relationships to politics and even science. Fanatiscm in this regard (i.e. "You're delusional, adhere to MY reality instead") leads to the worst kind of behaviour.

Your point here about the adoption of a myth, an unlikely method alone to find truth, simply to obtain existential comfort, is a betrayal of your intellectual integrity. — boagie

I think not. I see it as the most pragmatic thing to do. If there is some truth to what I believe then believing is the best thing I can do. If there is no truth to what I believe, obtaining existential comfort is still the best thing I can do.

Not to mention that I think the quest "to find truth" is a vain one. Don't get me wrong, in many ways I think that too is one of the best things one can do - but it boils down to being utterly pointless.