↪Agent Smith
I don't have sufficient knowledge to say, but academics who presumably do (men and women both) have asserted that matriarchies were few and far between, if they existed at all. — Bitter Crank

So this evidence of matriarchies being few and far between, doesn't that tell something about the gender differences? Maybe we could argue that if men and women are more similar than different, then aspirations would be more aligned -- such as having higher instances of matriarchy tribes and kingdoms.

Awesome OP!

You're still wrong.

Let me put it this way: Is there a difference between someone who can't mull over available options and someone who can? Which do you think is (more) determined or, conversely, more free? — Agent Smith

This is an incorrect way of looking at it. We have freedom in thinking, but it doesn't mean everyone recognizes it. If someone can't mull over available options, then there's something wrong with him.

Human brains can only be traced back to the big bang creation. — EugeneW

Wrong.

Males and females have more similarities than differences. People stuck on Christian women are wonderful and men are the be all end all viewpoints being the beginning of human existence will make arguments one sex is more ethical than the other. — Cobra

Why is this always the beginning of an argument for some people?"Males and females have more similarities than differences" -- so therefore, sex assignment and gender roles are nonsense? The similarities do not invalidate the differences. Animals of different species have similarities. But they differ in fundamental ways. Culture tries to artificially invalidate or blur the differences in gender, but if you look at the primitive and prehistoric records, humans just naturally acted based on sexes.

That's a confused post. Determinism is misplaced when talking about freedom in thinking. It's because determinism puts the issue on action, not thinking, or it just ignores that thinking of doing something is not the same as acting on that thought. To determinism, our actions are what we examine. Which is incorrect.

Why I took this up is because if one let's say just looks at income inequality, then you can get draw wrong conclusions about the issue. Because the fact is that income inequality decreases when there is a war or a severe economic depression. That hardly is good for the poorest, who a hit the most. — ssu

I don't think income inequality is the issue here. I'm talking about meeting more than basic needs and not slave away for crappy jobs. There will always be income inequality, but that's not the same as bringing the bottom on higher economic scale so that housing and healthcare are not based on income.

Or perpetual unemployment benefits. — ssu

No, not necessarily unemployment benefits. But universal basic income.

If you desire greater capital, then it is achievable to the degree that you give effort. Partake in more capitalistic endeavors. — chiknsld

I'm not sure what you mean here. But yes, we can have capitalism without the few getting the lion's share. When wages are a matter of allotted budget, and not what the employees are worth, then we have a problem. The board of directors or business owners could always justify that "this is all we could give to wage budget", without thinking of the worth of labor or contribution employees provide.

I've always thought you were a goat. What I didn't know was you're a male also.

Is milking a male goat possible? — EugeneW

Yes, but you have to spend a really long time to milk cause they produce a very minute amount.

If income varies even a bit, there will be low and high income. — ssu

Okay, I meant poverty income -- those just above or below poverty level set forth by the government, depending on inflation and per capita income of a country. If there's basic income for everybody, no one has to do stupid jobs.

I edited it. The dollar sign was a mistake.

Once upon a time, in the land of 1000 solipsists, one of them died. But the 999 left, didn't care. — EugeneW

Jesus you're wrong! If in the land of 1,000 solipsists, one of them died, 1,000 didn't care.

You can't even do math.

It's called optimization of meeting the needs of everybody. Yes, a few individuals might have to forgo buying the $100,000,000 yachts. But it's okay. You can't bring your yacht to your grave.

It doesn't have to be this way, though. There's enough wealth on earth to sustain all people without poverty and starvation.

Yeah. :up:

I agree. :chin:

I'll say no more. — Agent Smith

:yikes: Like, it's you who brought it up. Okay.

I think I broke someone's :sad: — Agent Smith

You broke someone's heart? Were you in a position to do that?

:broken: — Agent Smith

What's this broken heart? Did someone break your heart?

It's naturally permanent, because naturally there always will be those low income. — ssu

No it isn't natural that there are low income (and we agree that low income are those who couldn't afford a lot of things that moderate and above average earners enjoy).
You should read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. This Graeber was advocating basic income for all, so that even low income people don't have to work the stupid jobs.

Time yourself using different philosophers. I used Schopenhauer for this purpose. But try JS Mill, god damn! Archaic language. Descartes -- you should meditate on his meditation to get his point. Aristotle -- he's good to read -- like an ocean wave.

I've noticed that people who talk about "an AI" in this kind of context overestimate the capabilities of computer programs. Calling it "an AI" makes it sound like it's an entity, like a person, a mind. It isn't any of those things. — Daemon

This is correct. Remember Sophia? It was presented in public as an AI that could "think" and interact with you. It can't. The handlers feed it information -- like a song, or answers to questions before the actual encounter. It's very limited. But people think it's the closest we get to an android. But it's really isn't. It's a cringe worthy creation of people.

Yes. I just don't see the point you're making. — EugeneW

Neither do I see your point. So, are we good?

I don't know if it helps your case but belief isn't knowledge, it's just one of three conditions for knowledge (JTB theory) and that being so, proof isn't necessary. You can believe anything you want; fairies, Tinker Bell, Rocs, anything's game when it comes to just belief. — Agent Smith

Yes, one could argue like this as well. That's why I've been saying all along, why require proof of existence of god from believers? Why is there a special standard for this kind of belief that we don't see in others. And again, I've already mentioned the big bang, which no one here has countered. There's no proof of the big bang. Just some "testable evidence".

Okay. Are we done now?

We agree! Proving god or proving dreams are two different things though. — EugeneW

Okay, so now we're back to the pesky question of difference. In a logical argument, do you agree that god exists and claims that dreams exist are two different logical argument. One does not need it.

And they can't proof that they're alive either? — EugeneW

To me this is a stupid question, no offense. Why would you ask someone a proof if he's alive?

Are you even asking these questions in good faith or you're just bored? I'm responding to your questions in good faith. But it looks like we're going in circles.

Why it requires proof? — EugeneW

The belief in god. Those who say god does not exist because there's no proof of god's existence.

So we can't proof to others we dream, perceive and are alive. So what? — EugeneW

lol. So what? So, why does belief in god require proof of god then?

.

Exactly! Get my point? — EugeneW

WTF is this? What are you responding to? To my claim that we accept certain things without proof? Then we're in agreement. Thank you very much.

We could keep talking to each other and accuse each other of illusion or delusion.

That's no proof your perception exists. For all I know you don't have a perception of reality. How can you proof to me you see the world? — EugeneW

Then I could say the same thing with you -- all the things you post here are just your illusion and I'm under no obligation to respond to an illusion or delusion.

I have already explained somewhere in this thread what evidence are and what a proof is. For example, just because I see a person with sweaty palms, rapid heart beat, and deep breathing -- do I conclude that this person is at the moment fearful? No. That's not proof of fear even though those qualities may be present in someone fearful. Those aren't proof of the fear the person is experiencing. The only true reason why we know a person is fearful is because he says so.

Same with dreams -- the qualities you mentioned aren't proof. They are, maybe, evidence suggesting one is dreaming, but they're not proof. We only believe that person dreaming because he says so.

And let's go back to the big bang. There is no proof that the big bang happened. They could only point to evidential qualities present in the universe that the big bang is a very plausible theory, but no one in Physics community had claimed it is proof.

Snow is white to humans. It is a fact about human perception and language use. I have no issue with modest claims like cats being on mats, etc. But for me this does not tell us much about an objective world, just how a fragment of that world seems to us, based on the constructions of language and perception. — Tom Storm

Okay, then that tells me you don't subscribe to an objective reality. Fair enough.

A 1 hour dream lasts 5 minutes. REM. Seems good enough proof. A dog barking. Ýou talking in your sleep. Proof! — EugeneW

That's not proof.

Is this an empirical statement or a statement about grammar ? Or is it hard to say? — lll

Empirical statement.

Mind over matter.

Yeah, I also have reservation as to his argument.

But wow! Virtual choice sounds great! Especially about quitting smoking or other undesirable habits.

The thing is, I am not sure. — Tom Storm

You can search for explanation of objective reality. Then decide for yourself if your understanding leans towards the subjective. I just gave you what is an objective reality is. For example, if you think that snow is white and blood is red, then there's your objective reality. Facts come in statements. So, think about that. "Snow is white" is a fact -- is it in the outside world? If you agree, then you agree there's meaning out there --that snow is white. And it is intelligible to us. We picked it out from the external world.

But if you think that "snow is white" is not a fact, but our subjective interpretation of the world, then you don't believe in the objective world.