The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from it. The obvious question is well where did this something come from and again we’re faced with the brute fact that it’s always been.

Ghosts were probably popularised by popular culture and become easier to be accepted through various passed down fictive accounts of what happens after you die. As the evidence for it is scarce or unreliable then such claims can and should be dismissed.

Faith can be confidence in something coming true as in the expression “I have faith in my team winning for example.” The other type of faith like you say is the religious kind as in having faith in there being an afterlife or a god. Faith does not require evidence of such a thing existing but merely confidence in it being so.

Faith is correlated with belief in that they relate to things being true or coming true according to that individuals world view especially concerning the supernatural such as Gods etc or other scenarios where there’s uncertainty involved.

An example would be any piece of equipment that is more than adequate to its intended purpose such as a chair. Now you might want to question how can a chair be perfect which is a valid question but for the sake of argument, one made to a high quality and more than comfortable and able to hold the weight of the person without breaking, long lasting etc. Let’s call this chair the perfect chair - would you be happy to have the label perfect applied to it rather than just adequate?

Sure, if you want to add math to the equation, after all what is metaphysics but mental gymnastics.

Beauty is such a tricky concept to adequately measure objectively because everyone’s standards are different. The question is whether the object itself is beautiful or just my opinion of it. This can vary from person to person when it comes to beauty I believe.

The beauty is there but only one is seeing it (if he is truly having beautiful experience) — Gregory

But then what would make what is being witnessed beautiful is it the thing in itself - or is it the witness that ascribes such a value ?

If perfection is the description of a mere functional goal then that doesn’t say much as the definition in this case appears more restrictive then the definition of perfection I had in mind.

On the other hand without a clear definition the word itself remains open to interpretation, therefore the more descriptive in terms of output the more objective we get when classing such machines or organisms in terms of perfection.

As the often quoted saying goes “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” would imply that perfection is subjective.

On the other hand natures organisms and animals that roam the earth would be described as perfect, not by the same criteria but rather by the fact of the ecological niche they’re able to occupy, with imperfections being ironed out over time through extinctions such as that of the dodo or other evolutionary adaptations. By mere fact of them being extant (which would be a criterion for perfection) then despite whether they have predators or not would imply that such creatures are perfect or as perfect as they can get from an evolutionary perspective.

Thanks that clarifies things for sure, so to describe something as perfect is to take into account subjectivity, as in the perfect woman example (open to disagreement for sure as a matter of personal preference), objectivity in terms of intended output as per Carnot cycle and things that can fall somewhere in between.



But as Lionino explained in his Carnot cycle example there are certain operations that are produced which are perfect with little room for dispute so how do you account for that ?

Metaphysics can be fun speculation and because it’s an arena where there are no right or wrong answers simply because those answers are unable to be probed by science means that only good critical thinking need be applied to various metaphysical postulations insuring against logical inconsistencies.

Is goodness defined by the actions it is able to perform as part of its inherent design or evolution ? Or can it be ascribed to any mundane objects such as a rock ?

Thinking here of man made objects and natural organisms if they’re not able to fulfil the function/s of their intended design would you say that such organisms or inventions are not good in this sense?

A paper printer that does not print correctly or not print at all by virtue of not fulfilling its function would lack goodness, and thus would be a bad printer even though originally it was good when it was able to function correctly. @Bob Ross

Man though is different and able of goodness or lack of, so it’s inherently neither, as goodness is judged upon the actions one performs and whether they’re beneficial to the individual within the context of the society they operate in, in obedience to its laws, customs and regulations. A breach of such laws would be considered not good as the punishment would be to the detriment of the individual.

It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true. — Chet Hawkins

Just want to pick on this first point.

It’s interesting that you’ve somehow linked morality with happiness. And perhaps there is truth in it because doing the right moral actions signifies that that person has a conscience and doing the wrong moral action would lead to guilt in an individual. But this is not always the case as one can perform immoral actions and feel happy about it. Or make correct moral choices and feel neither happiness or sadness.

But now assume someone just found a suitcase with a million dollars in it. The right moral action would be to return it to its rightful owner however if they the choose the immoral choice which is to keep it by your logic they would be unhappy ?

I wonder to what extent despair is a temperament or a philosophical perspective? Also, to what extent is it a chosen viewpoint or one arrived at through outer experience of suffering? — Jack Cummins

It can be philosophical perspective or just a perspective of life too. Whether the viewpoint is selected from various other viewpoints is the personal choice of the individual because one can go through suffering and not succumb to despair.

Despair can be a psychological temperament albeit not a very useful one. Self-empowerment would be a more beneficial trait to have allowing for one’s personal growth.

Despair really gets you nowhere, to have hope for better by setting oneself goals and aims such as being the best version of oneself is to truly add meaning to one’s life and making it richer in experience.

As such I believe that the differences between an optimist and a despairing pessimist is one of attitude and mindset.

Hope is a powerful tool in overcoming despair.

Hopelessness and despair are quite similar in nature and are somewhat fatalistic in outlook. Hope is the cure for this philosophical predisposition as it allows one to view life as full of opportunities and that change for the good is only around the corner. As such having this optimistic and positive outlook in life that things are within one’s power to change one’s circumstances allows one to take realistic steps to do so. Which is much better than wallowing in static despair where one has no motivation to bring about positive change.

That is a dismal thought. Aren’t we more special than that? Looking at the statements above, is number 4, Man is a sentient life form, sufficient to make man special. If it does then that suggest there is more to us. Why would evolution produce a thinking being if there was no purpose in it other than continuation of the species? Could we not have been as successful in the world as a very clever ape? Does our ability to reason contribute to our ability to adapt and thrive on the world in a critical way? That is an open question that I don’t think has been answered yet.

If we are an exception to the evolutionary path of life, why should we be? It does suggest that there is a higher purpose to our existence, but what could it be. It does suggest that there is some force in the universe that is, in very subtle ways, directing the evolution of life. I don’t want to call it intelligent design as that leads to all sorts of other philosophic problems, but what is happening here. — George Fisher

Interesting points. As human beings our ability to use language be it verbally or non-verbally to communicate and impact the overall thought of our species enables us to develop on a social and technological level beyond our limited 80 or so year lifespan. This means us humans can communicate ideas and knowledge to future generations and this is indeed special. So perhaps the meaning of life is to add to the sum of this knowledge.

As to whether life is guided by a higher power such as a god, well this idea can be dismissed by atheists and cannot be proven by theists, but there do appear tell tale signs of intelligence in the universe with human beings manifesting it best, as far as we know. This could have been by chance and the chances of not just us but life itself manifesting in an otherwise lifeless universe appeared to be slim yet here we are.

Also worth noting that there are a lot of laws in the universe, intelligent laws that keep planets steady in their orbit or even atoms. These laws would in my opinion point to a higher level intellect that created this universe.

I would equate life being conscious with being aware of its surroundings and environment and its ability to adapt to environmental changes. The issue then is that plants can respond to environmental changes so does that make them conscious? You could apply a stricter definition of course as being conscious and alive are not quite the same thing.

In that case you’d have to start with the concept of personhood which as you rightly pointed out is sapiocentric.

I think there are different levels of being conscious from plants being able to respond to stimuli to human beings who are aware of their thoughts or aware of being aware (meta-aware).

I’d prefer a harsh reality or truth rather than a comforting lie which is why I voted against living in such a simulation. One of the enjoyable aspects of natural and real life is the challenges and adversity it can sometimes present and our ability to deal with such adversity which would help an individual build character and resilience. For me then the simulation would be a cop out.

But then again if prior to being born I was offered the option of being born into wealth rather than say to a poor family then that would present to me a bigger dilemma than the artificial wealth of a simulated environment.