Faith and belief are not the same — Fooloso4

This is true, as one can renounce God while one lost faith in God due to whatever circumstance yet at the same time such implies acknowledging God.

I am confident the near future is techno-dystopia — Yohan

We sure seem to be headed in that direction.

Better be prepared to receive a formal request to have a microchip inplanted :death:

What are your thoughts about it? — Shawn

However since as long as I can remember I have tried to actually dream lucid but forcing it to happen has never worked out for me. It is only since the past year (2022, for reference sake) that I have been able to experience the phenomenon as it has happened to me twice now and with the second time being last night, hence me posting in this very topic. Both times the lucidity during the dream happened spontaneously and while I was able to stretch the dream(time) significantly the first time, and was actually able to instantly alter the dream-scenario, it wasnt exactly like that last night as in fact I used the lucidity to let myself fall with the intention to end the dreamstate. Within the dream I became stuck at great height, which was also the moment I became aware that I was dreaming, and while that was so I saw no other solution than to let myself fall to free myself of the situation as I was unable to alter anything at all.

The thing gnawing at me since I woke up is the fact that I am afraid of heights en that becoming stuck at that height scared the living daylight out of me and that (ironically) it most probably was the fear of heights at that particular moment in the dream inducing the lucidity in the first place. The decision to let myself fall down I can reason through, as I knew that I was dreaming and that the fall would end the dream, but the absence of fear, throwing myself down while looking down atleast a hundred meters or so, right after the realisation of what it would take and the decision to actually do so, absolutely blows my mind. I woke up right away from the moment I started to fall and just as contradictory as actually letting myself fall, despite my fear of heights, is the fact that I instantly felt it a shame to not have experienced the entire fall down...

I'm actually hoping for both of these experiences to be the prelude for more of the same.

Try this:

https://www.documentaryarea.tv/video/Aftermath%20Population%20Zero/ — Joshs

Thanks Joshs :up:

Apparently this video is not available in the US. — T Clark

There is nothing in the description of this video hinting audience exclusiveness. I have to take you for your word on it as I am in Europe myself. However any confirmation from any other US resident(s) about not being able to see the docu would be greatly appreciated.

most important problem facing humanity — Xtrix

It is a multi faceted problem with the size of the human brain at the base of it all, it is that from which all our self-inflicted misery stems. Worse yet the misery and the destruction we inflict on all of the other species, flora and fauna alike. And to make matters even more worse humanity itself is divided into a plethora of self-opinionated individuals. Therefor humanity is not only its own worst enemy but an antagonist to all other life as well, the proof is in the pudding.

Rather than admit they are wrong, people will cling to their position to the very end. — hypericin

Perhaps some cannot see the wrong in their doing while others may be incorrigible demagogues.

If partying and drinking are so great and make her so capable of ruling her people, then why apologize for partying and drinking??

If she were to stand by her partying, the whole thing wouldn't be suspect at all. But if she's making it clear that even she herself doesn't believe in what she's doing, then why should we believe in her, how can we believe in her?? — baker

You make for good arguments but I guess in the end it is all about the realisation of being in politics, about seeing the error of her ways in conventional ways, not feeling morally compromised neccesarily but seeing her credibility diminished in the face of the public eye.

hauling her over the coals — Agent Smith

That is all relative in the light of her position as someone else has allready mentioned. She tread dangerously considering who and what she is and which she should have taken into account before doing so. If she didnt she must have failed to overview the job description. Watching it all from afar makes for a shallow observation, up close it all must have seemed rather amateurish.

I'vr heard of mother spiders who let their spiderlings feed on them. Watch baby spiders eat their mothers alive. Perhaps similar human behavior is a throwback to our humbler arachnid origins or maybe not. Worth pondering upon in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

Thanks for sharing that, it offers an intriguing view in the face of instinctual behavior for the good of the species.

Could some-kind of social/psychological response evolve from this? — Nils Loc

I wonder how empathy (or the lack thereof) comes into play considering and assuming empathy to be an innate trait in primates ("the ability to understand and share the feelings of another"). To violently execute another (guilty or not) or agreeably enjoy such a violent act there has to be a total lack of empathy (towards the assumed perpetrator), atleast at the very moment, and with a manifestation of (some) sadism as well ( with the collective sadism most probably to be the result of empathy for any (assumed) crime(s) against the/any victim(s) (of the perpetrator) ).

The inability to individuate is a key component to racism. It opens up a host of fallacies that the racist can never overcome, relegating his beliefs to a lower order of thought, and any action motivated by it to injustice. — NOS4A2

My vocabulary concerning English is very limited still, thank you for the eloquence with which you have replied.

Racism = racism, no matter who it is pointed against and no matter how many abstractions you throw at it.

Just accept the fact that racism is an anti-homo-sapiens sentiment, a self-inflicted poison, the very same sadistic evil fuel to a fire we dont need.

I noticed that the most down to earth, scientific minds I've met avoid metaphysical topics like the afterlife, the meaning of life, etc. Since they don't have spiritual or religious believes, thinking about it leads to emptiness, so they simply avoid it and focus on the moment.

My question is: is it possible to bypass that unpleasant feeling without some kind of spiritual theory that gives life a meaning? Like getting closure with the fact that life doesn't have meaning, that there is probably nothing in the afterlife, etc, and not feel bad about it, not lose motivation to live another day. (Whether there is something or not in the afterlife is not what I want to talk about, I'm just wondering if we could deal with the fact that there is nothing, and be happy about it). — Skalidris

Nothingness implies absence of any sensory information as well as the absence of (un)consciousness, so there is nothing to get unhappy about since there wont be any suffering.

Somewhat oftopic
Because of our limited perspective the concept of existence after life is just as plausible as non-existence after life, it remains unboxed until proven otherwise.

But a politician is a public representative of a state.. She is not an average lawyer or teacher she is de the damn Prime Minister of a country... — javi2541997

:100:

She was not presenting herself in public. It was a private party. The video was made public without her permission. — Fooloso4

Considering the profile(s) of her (media-exposure-hungry) companions at the time of the party it is without a doubt going public once such a companion starts filming or receives a copy of the footage.

Why would "(very) (young) people" make of this something more than someone dancing, singing, and having a good time — Fooloso4

Good times as such tend to end binge-party-style where it concerns the very young as young people are less limited by a sense of responsibility, for themselves and/or their peers, and will explore and exceed their limits easily, especially if provided 'exemplary behavior' of someone as succesful as the PM. If you cant see that, or perhaps do not want to see such, for whatever reason, there isnt anything more I can do or say to convince you otherwise.

You seem to be making this about me, what I think or feel, but it is about consequence of action, my personal opinion is of no value, I am merely stating facts rather than going on a crusade.

Lastly do you think AI has more chance of being beneficial or of being detrimental to humanity. What do you think AI would offer to us - huge advancement or sinister manipulation and slavery. — Benj96

I think we shouldnt mess with it (yet anyway) since we arent even able to fathom our own control center (brain) at this particular point in time, not in a psychological sense but also not from a physiological point of view. It might seem we have come a long way allready but we have merely begun to understand the basics of our own complexity, in fact we are just beginning to scratch the surface of who we are, how we function and what is needed for us to sustain ourselves without causing the destruction of our own surrounding (habitat).

We are like a child in every regard and a very destructive child at that. To say we arent mentally ready and responsible enough (yet) for the creation of an (artificial) 'life' is the understatement of understatements. Because even if we are capable of initialising any 'spontaneous' machine it would be used as a mechanical soldier first, at any particular point during its development cycle that governments see fit, not to benefit us but to destroy members of our species. The fact that that is so provides us with enough information as to why we shouldnt mess with 'AI' at this point in time in the first place. Just because we (think) we are able to create something as such doesnt also mean we should be doing so. It would be more fitting for us to selfreflect first, both at an individual level and at the collective level.

Does this include alcohol?
— Fooloso4

Is that a rethorical question? If not, alcohol is also considered a drug yes. — Seeker


There is nothing in the video that is out of line with the behavior of people at an alcohol fueled party. She said she had been drinking. It that the end of it because it was alcohol, even though the outcome can be destabilizing? Or is it that drinking should be prohibited for those in public office? Or is it that drinking is okay as long as dancing the minuet? — Fooloso4

You choose. After all this seems to be politics about politics. Should a minister of state, being an important example (role model) to a lot of (very) (young) people, take care not to present himself/herself (in public, via smartphone/internet) under the influence of an intoxicating substance which is known for its addictive (and destructive) properties? Or is it that such behavior shouldnt be made into an issue because the substance is legalized and (especially not) because the prime minister seems to be able to absorb certain quantities of the substance without any negative consequence (which could be considered an example in and of itself)?

Let's fully randomise it. — Benkei

Russian roulette was never my thing.

The Netherlands has their own brand of white, male, straight, not openly religious, upper middle class ruling class that are largely blind to the problems people are actually dealing with. — Benkei

I am from the town of Rotterdam (Netherlands) myself so I can somewhat relate to the things you say however I am of the opinion that most of the ruling class, which are ex-students in pretty much all cases, dont have a general clean slate when it comes to drug and alcohol abuse. On the contrary, the students are generally known for their excessive drinking and party habits. Relate those particular facts to the ruling class through the decades gone and one can easily conclude that their experience(s) with various substances and all sorts of parties have little to do with their socio-political 'prowess' (perhaps except for the fact that they dont seem to have any social connection whatsoever with the people they rule).

But I would be glad to see the facts you are talking about being disclosed publicly --I mean widely-- and in an official way --I mean by competent agents. With details, evidences and all. The sooner the better! — Alkis Piskas

If a 'Harry Reid' isnt a competent enough representative for you I wonder who would be.

This particular ex US senator has gone public about the very subject many times. Other well known important representatives of the US government, including military personnel (fighter pilots and radar personnel), have provided their first-hand (UFO) encounters via different pieces of footage and other documents (documentaries). It seems you have kinda missed out on that as the footage and the documentaries are widely en publicly available via Google since the past few years.

Pretty much. I'd trust a social worker with an actual drug history more to solve drug issues than someone that read it in a book. There's no replacement for experience where it concerns social issues. One of the reasons poverty is such a pernicious problem. — Benkei

I actually wonder how you relate that to a head of state.

I have a very different opinion as by definition the role of the head of state, or anyone else in such a position, is very different from that of a(ny) social worker.

You can take part in this issue through many ways. I guess it is not necessary to go to a party in Ibiza to understand that drug abuse is painful to your health.. — javi2541997

And will cloud one's judgement, during and after the abuse, which in the case of a head of state might have far-reaching consequences considering it could affect the political/economical fate of an entire state.

It is not that 'crazy' when going through the variable 'outcomes' concerning various consumers of drugs ... Drugs-usage in general is known to destabilize people ... — Seeker

Does this include alcohol? — Fooloso4

Is that a rethorical question? If not, alcohol is also considered a drug yes.

Personally, I'd be worried if a 36 year old woman couldn't dance like that, didn't drink and didn't do drugs. It would mean she has no idea about life, no experience interacting with others and therefore totally unqualified to rule because she has no idea about what actual people get up to. I'm a bit disappointed the drug test turned out negative to be honest. — Benkei

So people that dont drink, cant dance (like 'that') and dont do drugs have no idea about life and are by definition unfit to rule. Thanks for clearing that up.

But actually it's pretty crazy that a highly succesful woman, who also happens to dance well, is forced for political reasons to take a drugtest. — Benkei

It is not that 'crazy' when going through the variable 'outcomes' concerning various consumers of drugs. Not only is a head of state the highest representative of a particular state but such a position brings great responsibility with it as well. A/The head of (any) state can endorse or authorize major decisions which can (and will) affect many national and international matters. Drugs-usage in general is known to destabilize people rather than to add to their equilibrium (and no, not all people). Taken all facts into consideration I'm not surprised at all about the motivation to drugs-test such a high profiler.

Don't you think there are a lot of existential threats that might support the assumption that we don't have enough time to advance a miracle that defies the current limitations of physics — Nils Loc

There are few variables to consider, for one modern science being as young as it is, having progressed so much in such a relatively short amount of time. Second the fact that we as a species are still so young does not imply for any (possible other) spacefaring species to be at the same level of development as we currently are. For all we know there might be species whose science surpass our current level of scientific development with several millennia allready.

Certainly. And, BTW, I wonder, do we have any proof? Real I mean. Who can answer that, who is both honest and knowledgeable on the subject? (Jimmy Carter, maybe? :grin:) — Alkis Piskas

Up until now quite a few high profiled people have put their reputation (and careers) on the line to voice the truth about their personal experiences concerning unidentified objects and specimens, from military pilots to former area 51 employees all the way up to a US senator Harry Reid.

Facts come first of course. But Cosmology and Physics are plenty of theories which are based more on theories than on facts. (Although I'm far from an expert in these fields to talk in detail.) — Alkis Piskas

Very true however a lot of physics as well as cosmology (to an extent) are calculable based on (related) factual data while the possible existence of an extraterrestrial entity needs proof of existence for such to be considered fact.

You are innocent! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:grin:

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face. — Seeker

Isn't this a huge assumption? What happened to the facts you were talking about? — Alkis Piskas

I did not write that but user "Nils Loc" did, please re-evaluate.

Those are intriguing propositions but where is the logical relation between the subject and the context of the topic?

Why scientists shouldn't try to do philosophy

So why not?

A few more propositions.

7. We are the ongoing experiment of one of those civilisations.

8. We are (were) colonists coming from one of those civilisations.

Yes that's right. But I guess that the appearance of an extraterrestrial life would makes us to stay alert and probably to act in the military way. — javi2541997

Any response to whatever stimuli totally depends on whoever is at the receiving end, the (collective) size of the receiving end and the interpretation of gesture, motivation and movement at both ends.

I want to share an interesting opinion from Liu Cixin:
The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds another life—another hunter, angel, or a demon, a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod—there’s only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them. — javi2541997

There's truth to that but from a (human) military point of view and without taking any other variables into account.

For example. why would a much more advanced civilization than ours would travel that far a distance to destroy or even occupy our planet, which is on the verge to be destroyed by itself? Would we have done that if we were in their place — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps only if 'they' consider us a threat in which case we most probably would never see their 'face' as they would merely send us any mass destruction weapon of choice.

Extraterrestrial life must be included in the curriculum of Anthropology or other kind of courses in schools. — Alkis Piskas

But only if based on facts rather than assumptions. For now we have only myth, legend and anecdotal reviews to work with but the fact that even some former US government employees have produced such anecdotal reviews paves the way for the acceptance of any truth that may arise in that particular field.

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face — Nils Loc

Since humans have merely started scratching the surface of what is possible in a(ny) scientific sense such an assumption has little to no value in the light of progression, days are gone when the earth was still flat.

I don’t think I ever considered myself anti-life, but lately I don’t know… How do I find meaning in meaningless universe?

How to answer question to be or not to be? Problem with suicide for me is that you can’t change your mind after… but now I’m overwhelmed with feelings and thoughts that there is no reason to go on (although I’m no entirely convinced by one option or another…) — rossii

I guess there are a lot a people experiencing the same dilemma, I know quite a few and I also cant find any meaning actually but there are a few considerations here. The first is about loved ones, this has been mentioned before throughout this thread, and their pain and grief should one take his own life. The second is about the unknown, which leaves lots of room for any plausible theories. Some claim for there to be nothing, not even a void (in death) while others claim utopia awaits us while others think we will get reborn and so on. Yet the truth of it all is that nobody knows and anything is possible. Which means we also have to take into account that the possibility exists that we get punished (or 'disciplined') if we would take shortcuts.

AI are in the news again, and it got me wondering what the most common sense way to seeing these machines was. Animals have consciousness but not reasoning like we do. Artificial intelligence does or may someday have the reasoning we have, but does this mean they are conscious? I mean, we can imagine consciousness without reason, so why not reasoning without consciousness? I haven't seen this considered before, so I thought I'd throw it out there — Gregory

For now an AI is still nothing more than a database full of predefined (answer) sentences. The answer to present from such a database (AI) is initialised by the/any occurence of matching (key)words coming from any possible question(s). The 'smart' (reasoning) behind any of it is still (totally) dependant on the skill-level and the creativity of the (human) programmer(s).

I am not anti-life but personally I also wouldnt mind if everything stops once I die, as I wouldnt notice anything (peace/joy/taste/hurt/love etc.) anymore and as a result wouldnt have to experience any discomfort about it neither. But since I cant know what is beyond my current state of being I'm equally wellcoming nothingness as I am any ongoing experience(s).