He had an eye for me since he came to live in our street. — Hillary

Ok, that makes more sense than the idea that you kissed a strange man in the mouth and assumed he would be ok with that.

We already have prototranshumans
— universeness

? — Hillary

Someone with a pacemaker, for example, is completely reliant on this technology for the continuation of their life. That is a prototype transhuman imo.

But it has been discovered by scientist Ingo Piepers. — Vincent

There are many fringe 'scientists,' who can find evidence for anything you like, even gods

The rapture is happening already.. — Hillary

Well it did happen here:

Says brother Uni who believes in transhumans — Hillary

We already have prototranshumans. The rapture has never and will never happen.

Woowoo! Wooooo....wooooooo woowoowoo! — Hillary

My bipolar friend David used to make such sounds. I miss him. Look after yourself, ITS IMPORTANT!

They all have! And brothers, sisters, children, etc. It's just like here. But non-material and eternal. Dear grandpa of gods... — Hillary

:rofl: :lol: :rofl:
Surely you hear the growing throng of laughter towards such BS.
I take it you feel you deserve no better and that you will be vindicated in the end.
I am sure King Canute felt the same way when he faced the incoming tide.

There is mathematical evidence that WW3 starts in 2022. So society will fall soon. — Vincent

:rofl: No offence, but this sounds like something the 'rapture' theists would approve of. Pure woo woo.

Trust me, he wouldn't.. — Hillary

Why not?

Dear mother of god.. — Hillary

Your first cause had a Mother?? :rofl:

Yeah she knows. I kissed a guy in the street once, full on the mouth, during Corona! — Hillary

Well, could have been worse, the guy you kissed might have reacted differently.
But your wife may feel she can kiss other people as well.
If you are okay with that then swing on!
Each to their own! It wouldn't work for me.
I am male and heterosexual and would require exclusivity from a female partner.

In a truly free society, all woowoo should be allowed. And not one particular kind should be institutionalized and by law taught to our children. — Hillary

We can leave the woo woo to Hollywood movies and use the education system for actual education.

Thankfully many and hopefully most of your fellow humans have a more optimistic viewpoint.
— universeness
We'll see, the year isn't over yet — Vincent

I take the longer view. Never mind the 'year,' humans are not 'over' yet, that is what is important.

I would vote for an UBI! — Hillary

Good!

A proud bisexual! — Hillary

Have you told your wife?

:ok: — Agent Smith

Not the most detailed reasoning you have ever offered.

Don't be so quick to judge. You might owe your existence to a an avaricious ancestor! Greed existed for a reason, but, in the modern world, in so-called civilization, it's more of a curse than a blessing. — Agent Smith

Well said!
In the horrible Darwinian reality of evolution by natural selection. the altruistic homo sapien would probably be the first to perish. We don't have to be like that anymore but it's still a part of all of us.

exactly, now everyone is divided, so we will fall. After the fall, everyone will unite. But then there will also be a lot of tears — Vincent

:lol: Thankfully many and hopefully most of your fellow humans have a more optimistic viewpoint.

I agree almost with all of this. I don't see though why should stand together to form a front againsts woowoo in favor of science, as science itself contains the woowoo just as well. Woowoo is liberating! — Hillary

Really? I am shocked you feel this way based on all our exchanges :rofl:
When it comes to theism 'That's not my name!' I don't think we have any more to exchange.
I have tried to boost your focus on physics and diminish your delusion that you need gods to fill in your gaps. I have been unsuccessful so my SCIgodian offer always remains open to you.
After a while, I refuse to repeat myself so I consider you currently 'lost,' as far as rational thinking towards theism is concerned. I am sure you feel the same towards me and I am content with that position for now.

A bit too radical for my taste — Agent Smith

Which part do you consider too radical? Uniting in common cause with global humanity?

That's the one! So 71% doesn't mean a lot. They didn't ask me bout UBI! — Hillary

Aw! :sad:
They did ask me! I voted for it! and I passed the email to all my friends and family as requested.

Options, options, we need options, fast — Agent Smith

Here's a good old suggestion:
'United we stand divided we fall.'
'People of the world UNITE!'

If we work together we can stop even rogue asteroids!
If we are distracted by shit such as rich vs poor, white vs not-white, male vs female, science vs woo woo, old vs young, etc then we will be unable to deal with and prevent autocracy/plutocracy/aristocracy/cult of celebrity/ cult of personality/ general nefarious b******* and rogue asteroids!

There is an old saying, "There are truths, there are lies, and there are statistics"... — Hillary

I think you are trying for 'lies, damned lies and statistics' atributed to Mark Twain who claimed it was stated by British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. It is a very important 'checkpoint,' that people should consider, so I agree with the general 'pause and consider,' point you suggest.

Glad you agree with me. I think that's the most logical thing there is. The money has to go. — Vincent

I do agree with you on getting rid of the concept of money but I also want to point out that this has been a goal of socialism since its inception. It's a very old idea!
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.'
UBIs provide more economic balance but won't get rid of money.
Money is fast becoming reduced to numbers which go up at the end of each month in your bank account and then the total goes down over the month as direct debits come off or you use card payments such as contactless. This shows that currency could currently be replaced by 'credits' to and debits from your account. At the moment for too many people however, the debits are bigger than the credits.

where has that been tried? — Vincent

You might be interested in sites like:
https://singularityhub.com/2020/05/18/here-are-the-results-of-the-biggest-universal-basic-income-trial-yet/

There have been many many local trials of UBI systems. As I stated, its popularity as a concept is growing. 71% of all Europeans are claimed to support UBI.

Everyone here will think that doing away with money is the dumbest thing you've ever heard of. But do we really need it? — Vincent

An inaccurate assumption but I agree with you that the money trick is an evil system.
Even dimwitted theism came up with 'the love of money is the root of all evil.'
This was generally changed to the more popular 'money is the root of all evil.'
Money is the ultimate and most ancient con trick there is.
Have a look at my thread called:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12453/the-ragged-trousered-philanthropists-and-the-money-trick
UBI or Universal Basic Income is gaining a lot of support and popularity nationally and internationally.
Paper and metal money are already on the road out. Common currencies like the Euro reduce the number of global currencies.
Money is a very bad human invention that has been used to maintain the vile concept of rich and poor humans. It absolutely has to go.

Well, at least you are honest about that!

The question of proof again... — Hillary

In other words, you have no such links and you have no peer-reviewed publishings.
Can you do any better than, 'i'm working on it?'

The point is, I understand ohysics and they don't. — Hillary

You need to convince established physicists of your claims not laypeople.
You are just screaming into the wind meantime.
Provide the links you have to physics sites that demonstrate other physicists agreeing with your hypothesis. Identify your published papers that have been peer-reviewed.
I especially want to see your final sentence that states 'my overall conclusion is that god(s) did it.
You have said in the past that 'you are working on it,' yet you seem to spend a lot of time posting on this site about god woo woo.
You claim you can blow all these physics guys away but where are your links that demonstrate debates you have had with physicists?

(No) help is on its way! I'm on my own! — Agent Smith

Have you ever received help from other humans?

Well, if you would underdstand the string theory and the bounce and the reason for the MWI you would see that these are BS woowoo's and you fall for the bait. Probably because of the math involved. The DIMP guy doesn't even have his knowledge about simple quarks straight and woowoofs even more. Sounds interesting but his theory is BS all the same.I like it that he tries but his attempt fails, Im sorry to say. An eternal series of big bangs just needs the 7d quantum vacuum with wormhole structure to be created and the bangs follow naturally, exactly as the intention of the gods was and I'm greatful they showed me! — Hillary

No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however.

I have a final physical explanation. It doesn't need extra physics to explain it again! Now what? — Hillary

No, you don't!
Even if we take your viewpoint of the many-worlds theory as woo woo.
All you offer as an alternative, is the gods woo woo for a 'first cause.'
So, if the choice is between the multiverse, string/Mtheory, the Penrose bounce or some merging of all of these, then I will stick with the physics/cosmology route and you can betray and insult your physics by surrendering to BS theism, if you wish. That just means you are becoming a spent force in physics and we need to rely on others to eventually get to, or nearer to, the truth.
You just join the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy as 'one of those who respectably, tried.'

Self indulgent? Yes, I agree. But does that make him a ‘pig’ or a ‘dog’? Well, that’s your opinion. He’s still human - ‘human dog’ is a contradiction in terms. Which is it? — Possibility

Pig and dog are merely emotive comparisons. Humans who eat like pigs in public or shit like dogs in public are valid comparisons. Human dog is therefore not a contradiction in terms, it is an emotive projection. Even theists merge humans and animals to invent deities.

And you’re still not addressing the difference between public and private except in terms of personal, affected preference. So, society’s rules of engagement and decorum are based on the majority’s affected relation to ‘behaviour within the scenario offered’. This is why homosexuality has been excluded as inhuman and ‘cancelled’ or forced into hiding for so long... but that’s perfectly acceptable, right? Homosexuality is not wrong, but human society has ‘rules of decorum’... — Possibility

You have just given an example of how societal priorities/emphasis flex and change over time and due to 'cultural/political' movements. Homosexuals in the UK for example are treated much more like equals than they ever have in the past. Such changes do not mean that there should be no difference at all between how someone might behave in private compared to public.

’m just drawing attention to the societal process of determining what is ‘acceptable or unacceptable behaviour’, which Diogenes was questioning. It’s difficult enough to discuss these topics even now, but there were no opportunities for Diogenes to ask these questions in such a way as they could be understood - abstract discussions on reasoning such as Plato devised were insufficient - because it’s about acknowledging affect, feelings, and relation to quality or values as crucial aspects of reasoning. — Possibility

I understand that but there have been and there still are many many groups who live under quite different social rules than I do. From the Amish to hippy style communes to city folks compared to redneck hillbillies. Diogenes was described as a cynic. He sounded a bit misanthropic to me based on my limited knowledge of him. I am sure he would have found fault in all human systems even with the quite 'relaxed' epicurean communes. I think Diogenes was understood as he is cited as one of the influences on the development of stoicism. I think cynicism does have value as an aspect of reasoning.

The point is that we judge the behaviour of others based on certain ‘rules of decorum’ that lack objective rationality - so how can we claim righteousness? How do we critique the accuracy of moral or aesthetic judgement? — Possibility

I think there are some human behaviours that we do as a species objectively or almost universally find repugnant such as paedophilia. But I don't think there are that many. Even amongst my own local group of friends, there will be different reactions to particular realtime events.
Two men kissing in the street In the town center I still find difficult. Some of my male friends will react much more aggressively to something like that than I would. Others would have less difficulty than I.
I agree that it's important to keep your own personal feelings of 'righteous offence,' in check.
Mob mentality is very dangerous, so is inflaming mob mentality for the hell of it. Many humans get badly hurt or killed in such clashes. So I agree that we do have to keep talking freely about such issues of what 'socially acceptable behaviour' means when you try to frame it objectively.
Most of it remains locally and even nationally nuanced however and individually subjective on a case by case basis.
I am not an instant 'my way or I will get violent,' person but I also won't accept that I have to accept someone masturbating in front of me without my consent. I am capable of violence if I am forced into something I am very unhappy with.

In Diogenes’ time, there was no such notion as ‘war crimes’ or ‘fairness in war’. I think he might question why certain behaviour such as killing your enemy is considered ‘fair’ in war but not in the marketplace. — Possibility

There may have been no legislation for such but there certainly were many notions of acceptable and unacceptable behavour in war. Refusing to fight for example or running away or betraying your side etc.
Alexander the butcher killed the Persian officers who killed Darius as his rules were 'only a king can kill a king.' An English commander during the battle of Stanford bridge apologised to the enormous Viking who was holding the bridge almost single-handedly. He was eventually speared from underneath.
The whole chivalric system, samurai system and many many other such systems are all based on do's and dont's in war. How are these different from 'socially acceptable behaviours' based on the cultural tenets of the groups involved?'

Again, precisely the point that I do understand the physics makes me pose woowoo. That's the only last reason, the closure. So it's my knowledge, not a gap in it, that makes me see, and the dream, of course — Hillary

Then this is where we strongly disagree! I think your physics failed to provide you with your last reason and the frustration of that made you surrender to BS woo woo. I recommend you continue your struggle with your 'last reason,' as your current answer is completely wrong and will be utterly rejected by the science community, now and forever.

A rock band called Scigod. :lol:
I suppose I should have expected that my chosen name was already used!

The big question then: became, what's the reason for that material to be there? Where did it come from? — Hillary

So, as I said. Your physics fell short, so, in your frustration, you turned to the woo woo in your dreams.

Dunno. Why people have such difficulty with sex in public? I can remember kissing a girlfriend in a public swimming pool once. A lady was offended because of it. She asked us not to do it in public. It was that it was an elderly lady... I absolutely wouldn't mind it if people procreated in public. We're an animal species! Why are people offended by it? What's the big deal about sex? It's an expression of love — Hillary

Do you accept that people like the personal smells they produce but they don't like the smells other people produce. Perhaps that simple example will help you understand.
Would you like to watch your mother and father having sex in public?

The question is, why? How do I offend? — Hillary

So if you were having a meal with your wife and some of her family, in a restaurant to celebrate her birthday and the next table of 6 men, right next to you all started masturbating loudly, perhaps even helping each other. Would that be a nice night out for you?

I think you’re still missing the point. — Possibility

I don't think I am missing the point, I may be missing your point.

But this doesn’t settle the questions that Diogenes is presenting. What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? I get that ‘society’ as a structure of civil order makes this distinction and is expected to reprimand him, but what is it that ‘disturbs our peace’? Why am I so keen to distinguish him from my ‘self’? It’s interesting how keenly we tend to align our ‘selves’ with ‘societal order’ on the behaviour of others — Possibility

So based on what you have typed above, I didn't miss your point at all, I fully understand it.
The masturbation point is an example of many such behaviours that most people prefer to happen in private than in public. Its not a question of 'correct behavior' or 'incorrect behaviour' is a question of 'acceptable or unacceptable behavior within the scenario offered.'
From you having a loud chat on your mobile phone while others are trying to watch a show to someone peeing into an empty bottle at the dinner table.The behaviour Diogenes is suggesting is that of a self-indulgent pig. A human dog who will shit right in front of you in the street is just that, a human dog.
The dogs behaviour is not wrong just like masturbation is not wrong but human society is idiosyncratic and nuanced and employs rules of engagement and rules of decorum.
War crimes are based on bad behaviour, aren't they!
In war you kill your enemy, would Diogenes agree that rules like the Geneva conventions are valid or would he advocate for 'all extreme behaviour is fair in war?'
I don't think Diogenes was making a deep point of significance here, perhaps you do?
Do you advocate for an 'anything goes,' society? If you do then I disagree with you and Diogenes.
If you don't then we agree. If you think we should be less 'chiselled' in how we apply any 'rules of decent public behaviour' and make the effort to understand the problems the individual human involved is having, then I also agree. I don't advocate for an absolutely zero-tolerance, sledgehammer approach where all rule-breakers are just disposed of with extreme prejudice.

But how does he hurt people by doing that in public? What harm is done, apart maybe from cleaning up eventual sperm shot at public chairs in the doctor's waiting room. It might be entertaining in fact! Especially in a boring waiting room. Or pedagogical even — Hillary

What a naive posting. Most men will beat you up, some will beat you very badly if you act like that in front of those they feel protective towards. You sound completely self-indulgent. Your life has no more significance than anyone elses. You can't just do what you want when you share space with everyone else. If you can decide to do as you like in the doctor's office then other people in the same office at the time can do as they want and beat you up. If anything goes then the doctor can decide not to help you.
Do you think it's only your behaviour that matters?

But as you know I think I found a cosmology, which until now has withstand all critique (even my own!), apart from one detail to be fixed. So, now I know the fundamental makeup, there is only one means to give a reason for that material to exist and return the wonder to life and the universe which science had taken from it. — Hillary

Which is much more interesting than the 'background interference sound'/white noise you make with your last sentence in the above quote. In my opinion, your T.o.E speaks positively about you, your polytheism does not.
All you can do is find those who agree with your theism (like the SCIgodians!!). Perhaps Mr Harari is the best it's ever going to get.

I don't need them too. Not at all. They just offer closure and return the lost wonder. Universal life is just a temporary divine material version of the eternal heavenly life. And because they made it, we should be careful with nature (heaven kinda looks like the pristine state of nature, untouched by mankind). And yes, there it is: the moral! — Hillary

This just confirms my earlier thoughts about 'why you surrender to woo woo.'
YOUR gods really are 'fake plugs' for the parts of the origin story YOUR struggles with physics currently can't answer. You are merely a 'gods of the gaps' facilitator.

Nor am I about your predictions of a future with transpeople, people who live 300 years, or people who space away to other planets. It's an impressive picture you paint, but a lot of woowoo is involved, and it draws attention away from matters that really matter — Hillary

Predictions based on science are not woo woo. Predictions based on belief in the supernatural are woo woo because their source is woo woo. Science predictions are based on projecting evidence already established by empirical evidence, if they are not, then such claimed scientific hypotheses are normally rejected for being nonscientific.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point. Diogenes wasn’t advocating the behaviour itself, I think he was aiming to increase awareness, to challenge the ignorant and exclusive nature of a ‘civil’ life. This was performance art in an era of low literacy - a living, breathing critique of social behaviour which made it into written folklore. It was an opportunity for philosophical self-reflection, not to advocate a change in the law to enable people to masturbate in public, but to confront the public ‘self’ with the private ‘self’. — Possibility

Well, we probably agree in the main then. I don't wish to ban the maverick artist or to prevent individuals who wish to point out the hypocrisy of what some people act like and claim they believe in and practice in public and what they actually act like, do believe in, and do practice in private, but Its how you go about such protestations that matter within a particular village, city or nation.

A politician who watches porn in the house of commons should not keep his job as an MP by claiming that he was merely making a statement of art or that he was making a point about those people who watch porn privately but don't admit to doing so publically.
If Diogenes masturbated in public in front of strangers then it's correct that he be arrested and charged with some public affray infringement, regardless of any claims he might make about art statements or stands against societal hypocrisies. If he is found to be mentally compromised then he should not be charged with anything but should receive the mental health assistance he needs.
Such situations must be measured against the realpolitik of the time and place they happen.