That we do have an equalizing aspect, which would be the existence of death. So in terms of the macro view of humanity, we could be considered equal.

Going back to our initial discussion, I believe I had stated it may be more useful to define death as an egalitarian aspect of humanity, to assess it as an existence, not as a state.

Would you have any issues with this?

Excellent video.



Let us hope indeed...

Mortality rate is the analysis of when, not if, death exists. That would be what I am trying to describe..

The mortality rate is the probability of death, no? — TheMadFool

No! It's how fast the music is being played, not the music itself.

And I would agree. Although it stays then, or we are to agree that the rate does not affect the probability.

Sadly, no. The voyagers circumstances differ, and not all are happy with their too-soon departure. However, it remains the responsibility of all passengers to be exact; to venture off towards the gothic town.

Heres a maybe more precise analogy: Life is a pendulum, and no matter how forceful the swing, the pendulum will always come to a stop.

I like to imagine death as a city, and life its subway. The metro has a terminal exit, from which the passengers are obliged to leave into the great city. However, depending on the circumstance of the wayfarer, he may be compelled, or forced, to take an earlier stop.

Well, I would definitely agree with you that the rate of death is unequal. However, I would argue this is not necessarily correlated to the probability of death.

Well, I have a lot of faith that 1+1=3, but nobody except me seems to hold this true, no matter how much belief I pour into it.

Well, I'd be interested to explore our differences If you would want to.

I think assuming that eternal life is something unrealistic, (perhaps probable) and innately a fantasy, We are all one hundred percent likely to die.

In what mode do you see inequality?

Really! Wow, I would've said the opposite.

That's more or less the point I was trying to get at, I think. Another interesting point is that if the "state" or "mode" of death defines our equality, then we may only be able to perceive equality in death. But, assuming that death removes our human conscious, there would be no way to perceive your own death, and hence, no way to perceive equality.

Sorry, I have to admit I am completely lost. Although I would agree with you that death would not care through which means you come to an end, I don't understand how this would help my comprehension to your usage of "death" in your previous statement.

I had not meant under which form death is taken place, but rather whether he (the Grim Reaper) is a representation of the probability of death, or the state of death.

Of course, he (or she) could be both as well.

Well, i'd hope for that too.

Back to my initial question, er, if you are willing to tell me, What does the Grim reaper represent in this context?

Oh.

What should I hear then?

We can all be killed or we can all die in the exact same way - strangulation, drowning, lightning strikes, burning, bullets, old age, disease, all these have 100% fatality rates irrespective of race, religion, or anything else one might perceive to a be a difference - and that's why, although not in a way that would satisfy all onlookers, The Grim Reaper is considered The Great Equaliizer. — TheMadFool

I would assume the latter, but it's just the "Grim Reaper" confuses me. I don't exactly know which side he's meant to represent.

Alright. I have a question.

Is it the state of death, or the inevitability of death, that makes us equal?

Ah, My bad. I misunderstood your use of rebellion.

I do not think that any machine (or animal that I know of) is capable of these kinds of intuitive, emotional, creative and in a precisely self-conscious and existential way, "rebellions" responses. At least not yet. — SatmBopd

Only time will tell... It'd be neat if they came up with an international language, so we could just ask the darn question and get it over with.

Why, I don't think i'd be me without it.

Mm... I would disagree.

A tool remains a tool because it may be displaced without affecting the "who" of what you are. If your tool becomes profoundly correlated to your character, (i.e an olympic table tennis player and his racket) , Then I would argue that It is no longer a tool, but something of substance in correlation to the question: Who am I?

Likewise, because I believe sight is a tool profoundly correlated to my character (which would then mean it's not a tool after all), It's displacement would debilitate my self image, or the "who". It is only after I have rehabilitated the perception of myself to contain its displacement, that I would find it then remains, a tool.

I would suggest watching season one of Meerkat Manor.

Not to sound rude or anything, but I would be hard pressed to agree with you that rebellion is an intrinsically separate and human characteristic.

Whats the difference between a man and a machine?

Not much i'd warrant.

I would agree that yes, while a tool may be an extension of myself, it is not inherently me.

I'd have to agree with this, although something doesn't exactly sit right with me... I'll give it some thought and try to pinpoint my dissatisfaction.

That image freaks me out.

I would agree.

It could be a tool, or an instrument of some kind that I use. That is possible. Although the problem I believe lies not in whether it is or is not, but whether I would be able to tell the difference.

I don't exactly understand the metaphysical implications of defining yourself, but I'm inclined to agree.

Hmm....Well In what way are the eyes different from I?

Well, I had believed they were the same thing, the body and me. In terms of linguistic description, it's hard to exactly describe the difference.

(If there was, a difference :wink: )

I suffer from satisfaction. I'm too satisfied with my mediocrity. I seek no progress, and I cant fufill my capabilities because i'm in love with being an average joe.

In a sense it's nihilistic. You could pull from it a definition that describes a lack of meaning in actions, no real objective, etc...

Does that mean I'm sad? Meh. Am I happy? Meh. I'm satisfied. I'm depressingly satisfied.

I think sometimes it's better to view the real world without philosophy and just simplify the way you look at things. There's probably some inherent rational flaws in my point of view, but it helps control my lack of purpose, which is good enough for me.

Depends on who you want to be.

I find that a barbaric rationality, devoid of any logic or profound reasonings is actually the best weapon for attacking these sort of questions.

Keeps the response meaningful and simple. Something you can get behind.

Well, well... Our tastes vary then.

BTW, happiness has a lot to do with ethics. An unethical person can never be happy. Criminals are certainly not. Criminality is insanity. And ethics have to do with reason and logic. I am not talking about "constructed" morality, religious or other. But ethics based on rational foundations. (See "philosophy of ethics".) — Alkis Piskas

I think we want to describe ethics on rational foundations, but inherently its something purely subjective.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894461/

I would say that I is simply however you see yourself to be in that moment. Perhaps, in some scenario it would be much more efficient to describe yourself as a set of particles. Poof. There becomes I.

In other terms, I is like a joke that needs context to be understood.

Yep.

Well, I'm sure metaphysics has its place somewhere in philosophy. Maybe just not in the description of being.

I think my major problem with metaphysical conceptions to "organize" being, is that it contains in and of itself small determinisms that result in conceptual designs which go on forever.

For example:

"I see a concept of a red apple".

Well to illustrate the "red apple", you then need to generalize what the concept entails. An apple, being the colour red.

But then whats the concept of an apple? Well... the concept of an apple comes from the subset concept fruits and...etc.

This idea of infinite definitions doesn't make an iota of sense to me in terms of the organization of being. It feels much more closer to an intelligent over-complication. It as well describes that at the end of the tunnel, we wouldn't know exactly what a chair is, because the concepts would never end, but this is (probably) not true. We DO know exactly what a chair is.

Another aspect which I don't find clear is that perception somehow perceives this self contained complication, rather than just the simple object.

Well you hope you see one anyway.

I'm just kidding.