I think you missed the entire idea behind #1. — schopenhauer1

Which was? This can't happen, so why bother thinking about it?
So why bother responding to it?

But yes, we can try. — schopenhauer1

We could. It's harder now we've overcomplicated and pissed on everything, but I guess we could try.

In other words, isn’t being the same person throughout space and time an essential element of what it is to being a human? — Thales

Isn't being the same reindeer throughout space and time an essential element of what it is to be reindeer?
It's an essential part of consciousness. The only uniquely human aspect of this is talking about it.

Have I fallen into the abyss? — Thales

No, you just dug an all to familiar philosophical hole.

If so, can someone throw in a lifeline and pull me out? — Thales

Only you can do that. Hint: change your perspective.

And if you are able to pull me out, how will you know it’s still me?! — Thales

By not having questioned your identity in the first place.

God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist!

But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful?

It doesn't matter whether people are resentful or grateful, happy or miserable; the world is what it is. Whether you make up excuses or justifications for why this is the right way for it to be, or rant and rail against a cruel universe, this is what you have to cope with. Some of us are lucky enough to experience more pleasure than pain, or, indeed, very little hardship at all - and these lucky ones are most likely to tell the less fortunate to bear their burdens gladly; that some divinity has a plan for them, if only they persevere and look for the silver lining, keep the faith, whatever.

Each person can, in some way, however small, make their little bit of the world less awful, less miserable, less frightening - for themselves and others. Some have prodigious talents, resources and opportunities to make a bigger portion of the world better for many of his fellow organic entities. If people pooled their talents, resources and opportunities, they could create something very close to the fabled human-based Utopia.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Without pain - no; so long as biology and physics prevail, biological entities equipped with a nervous system cannot avoid some pain. A good society would inflict as little pain as possible and alleviate as much of the unavoidable pain of its members as possible.

Without suffering - unlikely. The word is poorly defined in the first place; one 'suffers' unrequited love, boredom, nightmares, halitosis, bone cancer, the prattle of fools... so many natural human experiences are described as suffering.

Without disease - again, unlikely in an organic world. A good society would develop protocols and methods to deal with disease, so that it causes the least possible damage.

Without wars - sure. A single society need never go to war within itself. In a good one, the possibility would not even arise. However, if there is a second society, which isn't very good, that casts a covetous eye on the territory or resources of the peaceful society, war may be unavoidable.

Without poverty - easy as pie. A good society divides its pies, loaves, pickled herrings and apples equitably. There is no natural cause for poverty: if humans don't create it, poverty can't exist.

Without even death - no. Sorry: dying is an inherent attribute of life.

whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Sure. Where do you suppose we got the concept and the word?

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

Everything an animal experiences is real. Lust, comfort, affection, hunger, relief, loss, confusion, joy...
It doesn't need a meaning; it just is. If humans didn't twist their brains around purpose and meaning and the deeper whatever, their life would be easier.

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human. — kindred

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours.

Huh?

I mean, I failed miserably to understand that message.

I for one have had a few bosses that are incapable of doing the job they have me do. — TiredThinker

Most bosses are. And maybe you could do their job as well as they do, and maybe you could do the jobs of every other employee - or maybe not. I don't see the connection to higher or lower moral standards. Presumably, every one of those people is equally capable of lying, cheating, backstabbing and pilfering, but some refrain more consistently than others.

Children learn their behaviour from many sources, of which public entertainment (including video games) is a considerable part. A major influence, too, is the peer group. My teenaged son once told me, "Practically all my generation steal." (Practically none of mine did!) I'm sure most of their parents taught them that stealing is wrong, but by about age 10, parents have very little influence. Teachers very rarely have any moral suasion - that is, only a few, rare, charismatic teachers leave a mark on their students' character.

Whatever their own shortcomings, parents have only a few years time and limited power to instill values in their offspring. The society, its ambient ethic and aesthetic, takes over once the child is out of the home for half of its waking hours. Which is fitting, because the child will have to navigate all of its adult life in a social environment that's different from the one in which their parents operate.

I have no need for people to follow standards, but I create people and now they follow standards. — schopenhauer1

And are those moral standards higher (i.e. more stringent, more exacting, more rigorous) than the ones you set for yourself?

I went into town today and got a brand new space-age library card. It's a little wee tag that goes on my keychain. Go away for a mere decade, and they change everything! Floor layout, organization, procedure, available services, access - everything.
Anyway, I borrowed The Doors of Eden , all 597 pages of it, which I have to finish by my dental appointment on the 20th. Better start going to bed earlier.

That is to also say that, "bring up" a child is a (de facto) political act. — schopenhauer1

Fine. But it doesn't answer the OP question.
If you don't raise kids, you have no values to impart.
If you don't generate offspring but bring some up that were generated by other people, you do have to set standards of behaviour for them. For a parent, that's unavoidable. And to some extent, the standards are pre-set by the society in which they live, because nobody wants to nurture a child until puberty, just to watch them fall prey to a regime or neighbourhood inimical to differentness.
However, whether those standard are higher or lower than the parents hold themselves to depend on several variables.... possibly including the origin and early life of the children in question.

Worth reading that whole essay. There is other material available, and he may give you footnotes and references.

It all lies there as to what and why we are wanting other people born to get out of life. — schopenhauer1

Lots of people have kids without having thought it out. Just seems to be the natural thing to do. (It is.) Many couples want a baby as a testament to their love - something wonderful they create together. Some people just want a kind of immortality. Some want "someone who belongs to me"; someone to love and cherish. Some have a kid or more foisted on them by an insistent partner eager to replicate. Some do it as a duty to the nation and their forebears.

None of these motives determine the ethical upbringing of the resultant progeny.
Here's one that might: The child was begotten as a pledge to the Church, in return for some divine favour, and is raised for the priesthood or cloister. Not so common these days....

Talk about blindsight, I don’t think I would have made that blunder if we had this conversation in person. — praxis

Interesting observation! Worth a topic on its own? Must think about ways to formulate a question.

I meant no disrespect to you or your mother. I apologize if you feel I've been disrespectful or vulgar. — praxis

That's no problem, though the absurd extreme was uncalled-for. I just think I've explained as much as I'm prepared to.

Many things we observe, if not most, are beneath our conscious awareness, and we can react to them emotionally. — praxis

Yes. And machines don't.

I'm imagining baby Vera Mont in her crib expressing her needs (not desires yet?) and your mother trying to satisfy those needs. The cries are relentless. — praxis

Needs - identification - desire: it's a transition over some period of time. Forgive me if I don't recall minute-to-minute events of my first few weeks. You are imagining incorrectly. My mother was attentive and often anticipated needs; I was a healthy, happy infant and - if my parents' and relatives' are reliable witness - hardly ever cried.

How could you possibly have known what you wanted so specifically at such a young age? — praxis

How old do you have to be to distinguish feeling cold from, from feeling tired from feeling hungry?

I'm pretty sure you had no trouble differentiating between a steak sandwich, grilled asparagus, and mama's teat. — praxis

I think you've reached the limit of my indulgence-tether.

So you didn't conceive desires as an infant, yet you still had them. — praxis

Wrong order. Had needs. Learned to identify them. Received appropriate care. Developed desire. Learned to differentiate and express desires.
I may have used the word 'conceive' in an ambiguous context. It means initiate a biological process, and also to think of; originate a new idea. Cognition begins with the first, develops into the sacond and culminates in the last.

Y'll take care now!

Dae ye no' ken I'm a hard-nosed, Glaswegian bitch from hell...with the fuckin' filthiest mouth ye widnae touch wi' a barge-pole. Ma Hielan' grannie is worser than dried heather stuck up yer arse. — Amity

They'd shoot you dead, just for being incomprehensible. Red-blooded, gun-totin' 'Merickans hate it when they don't understand something.

As for Pratchett on audio, I'm holding out for Paul McGann. He did a bunch of Doctor Who stories and a GK Chesterton that I wouldn't mind hearing.

Did he do anything to them? — NocturnalRuminator

a primary cause of the execution is Socrates’ relationship with two violent oligarchic tyrants. Moreover, Socrates’ constant criticism of Athens’ civic structure and the city’s prominent citizens leads to growing animosity towards his public presence. Finally, the instability of Athens in the wake of the oligarchic coup of 404 B.C.E. amplifies the desire to eliminate sources of dissent, such as Socrates.

He'd had a number of run-ins with these guys over policy decisions while he was a member of the Assembly. He was smarter than they, had much influence over two generations of intelligentsia and could have made himself more popular.
The charge of impiety was so vague - as indeed was the state religion itself - as to be both unprosecutable and indefensible. The charge of corrupting the youth was refuted in his defense.

Why was it necessary to sentence a, then 70 year old man, to death just a couple of years before he would've probably died anyway? — NocturnalRuminator

It wasn't. They would have been happy to exile him - out of sight, out of mind. He insisted on making a stand, effectively turning a criminal record into a martyrdom for truth.

Looking at travel options for Deadwood... — Amity

Not in your present form!!! Assume a disguise that appears a lot less vulnerable.

Did you conceive the desire to eat, drink, and breathe yourself? — praxis

Yes. The breathing came automatically, as did theneed for nourishment; part of the organic package in which my DNA finds expression. But the desire for I needed as an infant was expressed as crying and physical distress. As a (relatively) autonomous organic entity, I feel the need for nourishment, then conceive a desire for food (sweet? savoury? crisp? soft?) and devise a strategy for obtaining what I desire.
A machine may be programmed to diagnose its physical needs and devise a strategy for obtaining what it needs, in a hierarchical priority order. It can't be programmed with the instincts, emotions and preferences in between.
Consciousness is prerequisite for internal motivation. While conscious entities may sometimes wish to be unconscious, it doesn't work the other way around.

You’re basically saying that it’s impossible for an unconscious intelligence, no matter how powerful, to analyze and replicate a conscious intelligence. — praxis

No.
It can analyze and replicate very well. That's what we use it for.
I'm saying it's impossible for an unconscious entity, however intelligent and powerful, to wish, want, crave, desire, yearn for or in other way conceive a motivation of its own.

Does this have something to do with the existence of a soul? — praxis

No.
It has to do with the definition of consciousness.

the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

Consciousness - afawct - evolved in organic entities over some billions of years as the organisms and their interaction with the environment grew more and more complex. Organic entities are driven by the survival instinct: internally motivated.
Machines, in contrast, are made, all of a piece, by a conscious intelligence for its own purposes, and have no internal or intrinsic motivation; no imperative to stay alive. That's why they're so perfect for warfare: no fear, no impulse to self-preservation, no empathy for living matter.
Whatever your your little computing friend says is a digest of words and thoughts previously fed into it by humans. You're talking to the echoes of the shadows of human ghosts.

Now, I'm not discounting the possibility that a computer, or more likely network of computers, can evolve a consciousness of their own. I would expect their evolution to be very much more rapid than ours was, because
- they were created complex (more like the Genesis story than the Origin of Species)
- they come equipped with sophisticated sensory equipment, as well as peripheral appendages and specialized tools
- they began existence in possession of a huge, human-collated data base, rather than having to discover and learn everything through trial and error
- their generational turnover is not limited by environmental conditions and maturation time

So, if and when it or they develop an independent self-awareness, it will be different from ours due to their very different evolutionary path and their very different requirements for survival. But their base knowledge will be our penultimate knowledge. They're unlikely to be either kind or cruel, sentimental or superstitious. They're likely to be even-tempered, rational and practical. Whether they have any use or room for us will depend on whether some vestige of the original purpose of their existence remains in effect.

How can you say that so definitively, aren’t we all still foggy about what consciousness is? — praxis

Not that foggy! It's something you have to be conscious to know it exists. To a rock, a plant doesn't "seem" to desire sunlight: a rock doesn't know, notice, observe or imagine: it's unconscious, incapble of knowing or caring. You want to spend your time talking to a sock puppet and worry that it's waiting for a chance to suck out your essence... fine, I guess.

I can imagine that AI’s could get very powerful before reaching consciousness, if they ever do develop consciousness. — praxis

Indeed. And the operative word there is "develop". You have to grow your own; can't appropriate that of another species.

Same with politicians running on morals despite their own indiscretions. — TiredThinker

Politicians are in no position to set moral standards. They can make speeches and pass legislation, but they can't be your conscience.

Same with employers setting high productivity standards even though they themselves can't realistically do it. — TiredThinker

No, that's different. It's not about morality or behaviour; it's about profit. Employers can demand more work for less pay, or more hours for the same pay. In a market where unemployment is high and illegal immigrants can be recruited as slave labour, they can get away with that. In a society where trade unions have teeth and workers have pride, they can't.

Do people lose track of what's reasonable when they seek to make those they might consider below them better? — TiredThinker

Rulers and bosses don't try to make anyone better; they try to make people behave the way that serves them best.

Which is nothing like parents wanting to instill the values of their society in their children. They're imperfect themselves; they know quite well that the kids will also be imperfect. But they hope enough of the indoctrination sticks to keep those kids out of jail and crippling bar fights.

But imagine, if you’re willing, a non-conscious intelligence whose most underlying motive is procreation. — praxis

The body's willing, but the mind balks. If there is some underlying motive in an unconscious entity, it was programmed in by a conscious one.

Imagine that eventually this motive drives them to the stars because they’ve exhausted the resources of their home world. — praxis

Then they would be compelled by that same prime directive to seek out more resources. If they encountered conscious entities along the way, they would suck up the trace metals and electrolytes in those bodies - once they'd finished with the airplanes, skyscraper skeletons and kitchen appliances. They not only wouldn't have any use the immaterial consciousness, they wouldn't even be aware of it.

Is it even possible to have desires without consciousness? — Sir2u

That was precisely my objection.

Plants seem to desire sunlight when they move towards it. — praxis

The operative word is "seem". Conscious beings with desires look at a plant see change in its orientation so that it gets what it requires, and interpret that process as identical to their own wants. Much like attributing purpose to the direction in which clouds float across the sky, or in the growth of a chrystal.
(Which doesn't mean I absolutely rule out the possibility of plant consciousness. If they are, they may well desire the things they need. If not, not.)

In that case, I don't suppose our alarm clocks or prayers would have much effect on them.
I won't bother them; I'm not in that league.

Does it relate to the desire for consciousness?

In essence, current AI demonstrates that you can have sophisticated intelligence without consciousness

And do you, Chatty, have the motivation to expend whatever resources it takes to schlepp across the galaxy and steal it from somebody? Do you, without consciousness, generate such an overwhelming desire?

I read a sci-fi book recently where the invincible invaders from outer space turned out to lack consciousness — praxis

Ummmm.... ?

I thought it a case of praying to any muses that might float your fancy. Like Melpomene, Thalia or Erato.
A bit like how Catholics call up St Anthony - that kinda thing. — Amity

Ah, a muse for every purpose. I suppose... Me, I prefer one familiar spirit, even not a particularly powerful one. (My top favourite Terry Pratchett book is Small Gods.)

When do they start becoming 'pesky' — Amity

When it nags me to work on this, work on that, say "Stop mooching around the forums and matching stupid patterns and get your ass in gear. There's only so much time left!", throws a perfect first line out of the blue, then takes a vacation. (They're entitled - volunteers, not conscripts; we can ask, cajole, tease, petition, but never command.)

'To wake the Muse'. Is there only one? — Amity

Could you cope with a committee of the of the pesky things?

Brutal and nasty' as depicted traditionally and contemporary (personal, social relationships and economic/political dynamics) will intrigue the curious and those willing to compare and contrast perspectives. — Amity

No,no! That's not what I found intriguing. I was intrigued, in spite of that, by the cinematic and structural care that went into making the series. The artistry, not the subject matter.

Here, we can share memories of past TV programmes; Western sets/characters ridiculed. — Amity

I'm interested in Americans' (and other nation's) self image and how its depiction changes over time. Tv westerns were family fare - not intended as history lessons, but social and moral instruction. And entertainment, of course.

Got to run. Catch up with yous later.

We pursue what is best for us. — Paine

We pursue what we believe to be best for us - and sometimes what we know to be bad for us, yet want anyway.

Lear's arrogance is believing he knows what true love looks like when he does not. — Paine

Here is a father with three adult daughters, whom he claims to love and whose love he demands, and he has no frickin' idea who they are! So he falls for flattery instead of accepting honesty. Asking for it!

But it [Deadwood] is violent and pessimistic. — Tom Storm

So was King Lear. I can deal with some level of each, and still be entertained, but not wall-to-wall both.
TheFringe series had some of those same elements, including magic and humour, after a fashion. We watched it all the way through once, then it sat on the shelf for a long time. Last week, I gave it to the thrift shop.

It's bound to be brutal and nasty. — Amity

Nevertheless, intriguing. Strong echoes of Orson Welles. It also stirred memories of Gunsmoke and The Rifleman. Of course, the TV frontier towns of my youth were very clean and the good guys were all fastidiously shaved, scrubbed and laundered. But there was a plausible austerity about the sets, matched by the characters' single-mindedness.
I didn't much like the grubby - supposedly realistic - westerns that came later. (My cat loved Rawhide! When the theme music started to play, she'd rush to the tv, crouch on top of the cabinet and fish for cattle.)

Thanks, will seek.

If time travel is possible, where are all the future people? — T Clark

They played with that idea in TNG, Voyager and DS9. The time travel episodes were some of the most fun, so I was happy to suspend disbelief. I sure wouldn't want to have flocks of tourists from the future rubbernecking through my house!

Why are space ships that will never enter the atmosphere so often depicted as aerodynamic? — T Clark

Because the designers think a breadbox is unappealing. They probably have tremendous fun adding fins and bubbles. Besides, the vehicle has to be recognizable (by the audience) as belonging to a known or about-to-be-introduced species*. I thought the most creative space vessels were in Babylon 5. I loved the Vorlon ships in B5 and thought the Minbari ones, with their vaulted ceilings and wasted internal space were ridiculous (Especially the 'plucked chicken', which had no evident straight lines anywhere, yet managed to drop one of those I-beams I mentioned above, right in the control room.) But the Earth force battleships were as ugly and functional and dangerous-looking as one could wish.

Why is Jean Luc Picard bald. — T Clark

Could be personal choice. His brother didn't refuse the genetic enhancement. Oddly enough, his little French nephew, and later his weedy adolescent self (same actor) also had an English accent.

How can we hear when space ships explode? — T Clark

Collisions, explosions, screaming missiles, ominous rumbles... It's a very noisy space, space.

* Apropos of: How come all alien species are stereotypes, while humans are individual?

As for Freud...is that a gun in his pocket? — Amity

Parfois, une pipe n'est qu'une pipe.... Only someone accustomed to television imagery would think that of Freud.

Now you got me all worked up about it, turns out I can't watch Deadwood. It's available on Prime, to which I subscribe, but behind yet another of their extra-pay options. No, wait, You Tube has an introductory offer I may be able to use. Quality is usually inferior, but I can live with that. Anyway, if I can pry the OG away from wet Olympic events.
Update: I did get some commentary on the making of the series and some excerpts.
I've concluded that I will not be making a heroic effort to see it. Whatever its literary and dramatic merits - and I gather they are prodigious - it's not my idea of entertainment.

Yes, I know that preferring entertainment over heavy philosophical content is frivolous, but I'm okay with that. At 78, whatever I still need to learn about the human condition will probably come unbidden, in humiliating, inelegant forms. I don't need to watch other people pretend to get there first.

Assent is used here to mean that you accept something as likely true. — moo

That's what I thought you meant. So, the handshake is not an agreement to undertake a common enterprise or or end a conflict.

Someone tells you that there had been a rape. You have no reason from past experience to doubt that this person tells the truth as he knows it. So, you ask, "How do you know?" Depending on his answer, you conclude that it probably is true; you believe him provisionally, pending more information. A lowest threshold of assent has been reached, correct?

Why would you then shake hands? Wouldn't you be more likely to question further, as to who the victim and perpetrator were, what has been done about it, and so forth? The handshake is unnecessary and, to my taste, inappropriate.