Believe what you will. But mention it and I'll unpack it.
Your choice.
Alternatively you could embrace rationalism and stop with the myth making.

↪charleton Seems like there's a neural correlate for all mental events, but this was meant as a 'what if?' Just a bit of fun really — Oliver Purvis

What if things were not as they actually are. What if everything we know about what we are, about life, about the very nature of life is not true.
How can you even talk about a 'next stage' of consciousness if you do not have the equipment to have any consciousness at all?
Even hypotheticals have to have a basis.

That we need our brains to make us who we are is not debatable.
If you want I can prove this to you in a few minutes.
Come on over and take the blunt spoon challenge.

I can make you disappear bit by bit with a spoon in your brain. I can ever do it in such a way that you will know that you are loosing parts of yourself, until there is so little left of you that you don't even know what you are let alone who you are.

I know that, I do not have to believe it.

The evolution is genetic terms would not necessarily extend more than the use of the phrase "fancy a fuck baby".

establish themselves in the community. — StreetlightX

You care confusing genetic evolution with cultural/ social evolution. You have no account is these "linguistic innovations" could be encoded in the genome, and there is not need for that to be the case . Social evolution is extrasomatic.
So whilst it would always be the case that a species that relied on language would tend to favour those with an adequate linguistic ability to be able to procreate, there would be no direct pressure onspecific innovations.

Samsara is the realms of existence. I'm not sure but there are supposedly 6 realms - gods, demigods, humans, hungry ghosts, and hell — TheMadFool

My advice is to consult the Dungeon Master's Guide for more information.

ultimately there would be no escape from death. — Oliver Purvis

Since all our experience, knowledge, hopes, fears, personality and memories are demonstrably
and uniquely coded as neural structure, any 'afterlife' would necessarily be meaningless unless we could take our brains with us.

Genetic assimilation is unlikely to be the case here. It has only been witnesses, and then only speculatively, in cases where a clear tetrogen is evident in the environment, such as a chemical and can directly cause an epigenetic change.
It is highly speculative, as is all cases of epigenetics, which is poorly understood in the general public.
It would be a difficult ask to prove that using words could effect a positive change in the genome.
What is being argued is that there is a limited innate facility in mammals to structure utterances in some way. All mammals have ability in this respect. But the examples where linguistic ability is at its apogee are examples where the brain is most highly developed is closest to a tabula rasa and able to employ micro-darwinian selectivity to neural pathways in build in vivo linguistic abilities. So rather than coming with a complete set of grammatical rules, humans learn as they go.

Are you saying that just because you don't believe life is good it isn't? Or are you saying that you don't believe your life is good. — T Clark

Please refer to posts I have already made.
If you want to know if I think life is good or bad; it depends on what sort of criteria you want to bring to the table. Do you mean all life, my life, the lives of others? On earth, elsewhere?

I can't tell whether your objection is that "life is not good' or that 'life in itself is good' is poorly stated.

If you would, please clarify your view. — Bitter Crank

I've made the point more than once already.
Value judgements require a valuer. Nothing has inherent value.

Do you really believe that discussions of value have no place in philosophy? — T Clark

Obviously yes. But the claim that a thing has its own build in judgement is absurd.

Belief is for religious Forums, this is Philosophy.

Gusty, please do not misquote.

I know that you don't know what you're talking about - meaning that you don't understand the fundamentals at all.
— Agustino
It's you who is lacking in the fundamentals of economics money. But good that you admit Maw making the obsevation that such volatility isn't good for any currency. Of course I made the observation too... — ssu

This is quite a typical response from gusty. I'd not let him bait you!

To assert that "life is good" -- not just my life, your life, or a millipede's life but Life- — Bitter Crank

There is a philosophically technical term for this used in all British universities. It is called bollocks.
Some might say that Ben & Jerry's Ice cream is good in itself and they would be wrong too.

It only take one dissenting voice to prove my case, which is true regardless of that voice.

It means nothing. "good" is a judgement relationship between an observer and a thing.
It a value.

Indirect, because we only have mediated access to our own mind. Much like our access about the world. — Marty

How are we distinct from our mind that we have limited access?
Sounds like a contradiction

because we are often wrong about what we're thinking. — Marty

It is nonetheless true that, that IS what we are thinking, wrong or other wise.
You are setting up odd dualisms.

No it is not. It is a testament to fear and an evolved sense of survival.

The claim remains bold and unsupported. There is nothing anyone could possibly say that supports this claim. There can be nothing inherently good. Good and Evil are value judgements and are subjective.
Life cannot be "good in itself". It can only be good in his (the poster) opinion.
It would have been more honest to say "I think life is good."

Life is Good in Itself. — Bitter Crank

Starting with such a bold claim does not endear readers to take you seriously.

I'll take that as a compliment?

Not specifically.
Anyone whose very nature is anathematised by the culture he lives in is not going to have an easy time of it. Life is hard enough as it is without being marginalised.

You are the only person I know that has ever denied it.
You've already offered evidence in your own post.
Wittgenstein spent his life in existential angst wrestling with his own nature. Nothing I have read denies this anxiety, and his homosexuality.
I can't offer you hard evidence.

Have you got some objection to homosexuality?

The quote does not deny his homosexuality, please note.

I cannot speak for him actually having gay sex, that's not the issue.

The fact of his sexual orientation has never been at issue as far as I am aware. I was reflecting that such an orientation, even these days, can leave a person with a deep sense of alienation - hence "hard to be gay".

There is not a scrap of doubt that he had relationships with men and women in his life.
Homosexuality was illegal and heavily scorned by social pressure. It led Alan Turing to kill himself.

It was hard to be gay. More so then than now.

I'm sorry, but it has become very clear that you aren't discussing philosophy, or contributing anything useful to the conversation. You're here to blindly push your own ideology — JustSomeGuy

LOL. Run away!

"Purpose" is an idea a conscious mind. There can be no overarching purpose to life, the world, the universe, unless you posit an over arching consciousness. Even if you believe in a god, it's anyone's guess from the confusion and chaos of the universe what that purpose is supposed to be.
For smart people, it's enough that purpose is a set of self generated ideas upon which you live your own life.
Purpose can be the concatenation between the lived existence, the imagination of the future and the natural urges and passions. For each is to take the lived experience and bring these things together to live an authentic life; a life unimaginable were you to allow your self the arrogance to think that god has a purpose for you. Inauthenticity is the only route for the theist
.

Life without purpose is not a bad thing, but we all seem to be sharing the same purpose, to create. — Rich

There are plenty of people who would disagree, and there are many examples where this is so obviously not the case.
It depends on so much; what counts as worth creating, and destroying?

[re

Of that I am aware of. I just used the term figuratively. — Posty McPostface

Probably are alternative words less offensive.

↪Agustino

Good point in the second link. Wittgenstein wasn't a saint but sure comes damm close. — Posty McPostface

He'd have probably been horrified to hear you say that. The church was not friendly to homosexuals.

It is the belief that there is no god. — JustSomeGuy

You wont make this true by keeping on saying it.
In the same way you seem to think that the more you say god exists, god becomes more real to you.
This is exactly and perfectly an example of why belief and faith are the ruin of all reason and rationality, and that is why I'll have none of it.

Do you think it is every worth considering the moral content of taking wealth out of the economy without working for it?
— charleton

Interesting point of view.

If you buy a house and a few years later it's worth more money because the central bank blew up a housing bubble, and you happen to sell your house for a profit, do you give the money to charity or what? It's the same house, four walls and a roof. Provides shelter for a family. Its value hasn't changed at all. Is it immoral to pocket your profit? — fishfry

Yes, you have located the source of all inequality and immorality in the economic system, well done.
It is more healthy for our economy to incentivise work and wealth creation. Cryto-currency is the apogee of immorality in this respect. It does not create wealth, it is a mechanism for theft of wealth.

An aomeba can demonstrate what you like to call belief. When it envelops a piece of food you say "it knew the food was there". This is absurd anthropomorphisation.

When a fledgling flaps its wings for the first time the fool says "all it has to do is believe it can fly and it shall".
A shark has no need of belief when following a trail of blood finds food; it just does it.

Both belief and doubt are conceptual, actions are inadequate to express these.
An observer might infer them from the actions of one whose language is not developed, such as a child having an idea that a treat under a cup, but the belief that the treat is under the cup is not a belief in the child.

Saying that atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, but instead it is a lack of belief in god, is nonsense. — JustSomeGuy

Rubbish. I cannot hold a belief in a thing that is nonsense. I respond to any question about god by asking what is meant by it. As it is not part of what I know to be true I do not accept it. This has nothing to do with belief.

Theism is the belief that a god exists. Atheism is the belief that a god does not exist. — JustSomeGuy

This is a false symmetry, since atheism is a flag to denote a lack of theism. You are just abusing language to try to make your point. It's clumsy and obvious.
Atheism is not any kind of belief at all. I do perfectly understand why Theists are so intellectually dishonest on this point. As this is just arrogance of the foolishness of theists who know how inadequate belief is and wish to tar atheist with the same stupid-brush. I do not need Faith in Atheism, just not believe in that rubbish from theists.

When everyone else is being irrational, it's irrational to be rational. You have to balance what you know is true, against the money to be made simply by joining the crowd — fishfry

Maybe.
Do you think it is every worth considering the moral content of taking wealth out of the economy without working for it?