Completely agree. I think the human mind is too unreliable to find objective truth in most things. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the reality we see isn't real at all, maybe just altered a bit t our liking. (Pattern Recognition and the like)

Yeah, sort of. I think that applies for the past just as much as other places today might put it better.

I believe that free speech is important, but some people just don't. A lot of the time people see progress as a straight line, and never consider at all that there could be some truth in different ways. At the end of the day, even though I don't believe in God, I can't say that he isn't real any more certainly than a devout person can say that he is. Free speech and expression help to reach the end that is a society where all views are at least given a platform, but in practice, people use those rights to deplatform their rivals and that sort of defeats the purpose of free speech. It's a tricky situation, but also a problem worth solving.

As for the power of Christianity, as far as I was aware it has been a huge part of American and western culture for hundreds of years. I may be mistaken, but it seems like up until 1958 schools did teach morals, but they were Christian morals, which kind of defeats the purpose of mentioning how they stopped teaching them in an argument against Christians themselves. I would imagine that a lot of moral positions you hold are also ones the church held, (The Ten Commandments and such. Of course maybe not all of those, but for the western world they seem to be the starting point for most senses of morality.) and those were probably taught in schools. Of course, some things the Bible says (Like stoning homosexuals and women being traded almost as property) are certainly bad, (at least today) and I don't disagree with that. So overall, I don't think everything religion teaches is good, or accurate, but they are certainly a useful institution that has had power for a long time and is worth keeping around if for nothing else as a sort of "devil's advocate" (ironically) for an increasingly Atheistic society.

I think my position is something close to pacifism in a political and moral way. There is no universal answer key telling us what is right or wrong, true or false, so hurting others emotionally or physically for holding a view is a risky venture at best. (Of course, I assume you don't do those things, but some people certainly do.) So I don't think the church should be the primary source for moral teachings to the general populace, but I don't think secular organizations in schools should be either. Isn't the most egalitarian way to give both a platform and let the people decide from there? What about the other organizations that have strong moral views? I don't see why they are any more right or wrong than the two mentioned before, so they should have platforms to discuss too. Ideally, society would be governed (at least in the context of morality) by the majority group out of all of those, or by none at all, each acting as sort of guiding hand to those who wish to learn their ways and then apply those.

Our liberty and democracy are being destroyed as the Military Industrial Complex is swallowing up the rather weak secular organization we had. (I am testing this bold statement. If you think me wrong please say so.) — Athena

Hell if I know. From personal experience, I can tell you that at least where I live, Atheistic ideas and institutions have never really held power. The only reason I ever learned about the concept was a book about the Bill of Rights I read when I was in 5th grade. I grew up around people who thought I was a freak for not believing in God, and for a time I thought that they shouldn't be able to speak their mind because they didn't think rationally, but as I got older I questioned rationality itself. How can we be sure we are correct when our brains forget things and make up new things all the time? It is my belief now at least that a fundamental part of the human experience is not knowing the truth. I find it hard to think that I am above my friends and neighbors and family when I don't even know if I'm right after all.

As for a Military Industrial Complex, maybe. We have been militaristic almost as long as we've been religious, so it would be hard for me to say without looking into it more.

For some people, revolutionary conflict would be utopia. There would be a great cause to fight for, a great enemy to fight against -- good vs. evil -- and revolution need not be a violent overthrow of the government. — Bitter Crank

I suppose that's true. I'll look into more reading about this and maybe we can discuss it some day. For me at least, a utopia would have to be a society in which no ideas are suppressed, so I guess the million dollar question is how to do that. I'll think on that and I hope you do too. Other than that, I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the resources, I hope you have a great day.

Discontents, mental illnesses, physical ailments, injuries, and so on can leave people unhappy. — Bitter Crank

I think one of the main things that makes a society utopian is access by all to cures for these kinds of things. So in my belief, a prerequisite for a utopia would be everyone fully having the capacity to be happy already, they may just not be at the moment due to factors other than their health.

I think that a stable structure like you describe is certainly good enough for now, but perfection should be pursued even if impossible because the more we try the closer we get. I also don't think it's the only stable structure. I may be seen slightly as a radical by some, (and of course, I would never do any of these things, I think they're horrible) but some cultures are simply ok with things that we would consider violations of human rights. Societies around the world and certainly in the future will include extreme social stratification, and in some parts of the world, that is considered fair. Of course, corruption happens, but I would assume socialist nations have had some history with corruption as well.

In nations and parts of the world where the values that socialism protects (equality between all economically and non-competitive economies) are wanted, people should certainly live that way. If people wish to live by the word of their god (regardless of whether you believe that their god is real or not, personally, I don't) or to create great wealth for themselves, I have a hard time telling them those are morally ambiguous goals. One man's trash is another man's treasure is essentially what I'm trying to get at here.

Could a world dominated by socialist economies exchanging goods work? Probably, and it would make socialists very happy, but what of everyone else? In a few generations, most people will probably have submitted, but there will still be holdouts. You would have to take them by force, and that sounds more dystopian than utopian to me. It's almost the same thing as our original subject here. Capitalists get deplatformed and a whole way of life is destroyed. Was that way of life good? To you, no, but to the small business owners and CEO's and the average man who wants to live above average means, it certainly was good. The poor will most likely agree with you, but that just seems like choosing one group over another.

I'm probably wrong. All I know is that this whole crazy world is full of even crazier people who think entirely differently with different values. Sometimes equality just isn't valued, and the only thing you can do about that is try to convince them, and if you can't, you have to live with that. They probably think you're just as wrong as you think they are. If a utopia were to come about, it would have to circumvent this entire problem as well as provide institutions that make people happy.

GOOD JOB! I love the way to cleaned up the popular misunderstanding. :up: — Athena

Sorry for misunderstanding at all. I haven't taken any classes on economics or looked into the writings of many capitalist or socialist advocates. I probably should, and may very well in the future. Again, sorry for misunderstanding at all, but from how Athena put it, it seems to be common, so at least I know that I may be mistaken now.

I think if I'm being honest, I like any idea of a Utopia, whether it be a Libertarian's lawless world or a Socialist's united one. I can't shake the feeling, however, those old world systems could never lead to a world where every last person is happy, (which I suppose would be the definition of a utopia). So to restate my question from earlier a bit more clearly, do you think that there could be a system of economy or administration that could lead to that? Something that doesn't need to be entirely new, but could probably benefit from a few new ideas. So I'm sort of asking you to theory craft your own new government using any ideas you like.

There would be markets, because markets are the obvious method for people around the world to trade goods and services. — Bitter Crank

At least to me, that just sounds like capitalism between socialist states.

It's an interesting discussion though. As you said, I am also a sucker for that kind of utopian fantasy. I try to stay away from politics mostly because it seems that not many people actually wish to discuss them, more indoctrinate.

Didn't he also say that "Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried all the alternatives."? — Bitter Crank

I believe he did. It is, of course, a bit ignorant of us to always seem to do that, but the statement itself reminds me a lot of the other European nations at the time that also thought they were right. Churchill has always been a strange figure to me. Bold in his words, and they were necessary for the time, but maybe not self-reflected.

The personnel may change over time, but there always seems to be opposing advocacy groups in favor of loosened mores, and other advocacy groups in favor of tightened mores. — Bitter Crank

I guess the question now is, where do we fit into this? I believe (well, hope) that someday these advocacy groups can live in peace. It won't happen soon, but I keep out hope that it can, and Philosophers may be able to help. Advocates for both major theories of sociology would probably argue that what leads to progress is these two sides pushing, but a man can dream, can't he?

All that aside, I believe you have a point. Democracy is damaged by restrictions like this, but the people who put those restrictions in place are usually ok with a less egalitarian society as long as they get their way, and I think it would be bold to say that Democracy is the only way to go for a free and functioning society. There are probably lots of ideas that we haven't tried yet. Democracy surely is the only form of government so far that respects freedoms, but I think to just stop there would be foolish. Our ideas trailblaze the future, and if we want a better future, I think we should start thinking one up.

What do you think a truly free form of government would be like or involve?

Now, the union movement is more important than NSFW microblogs, but the more ordinary individual's capacity to carry out executive agency are suppressed, the harder it is to maintain a healthy democracy. — Bitter Crank

I think that it does perhaps damage democracy a bit. I just can't help but feel bad for all of the people being deplatformed. There are of course more places for them to go, but as you said, one restriction leads to another. I suppose it's just society's way of weeding out the ideas they don't like. Of course, what is a weed and what isn't falls to the individual. I just wish we weren't so hasty, lest we pull out something valuable and throw it away.

I don't think this whole ordeal threatens democracy itself. I think it more threatens certain people's cultures and lifestyles. After this is all over and we know where it's all going, these people will still be able to vote, hold office, have political beliefs etc., but a whole way of life will be irreparably damaged. Some would say that smut or erotica is crass and should be removed, and they certainly can think that, but that is certainly not a moral absolute. There are plenty of people who think that it's normal to view that kind of stuff.

Since the dawn of time people have been persecuting others because one belief system contradicts another, so there is no avoiding this kind of thing from happening, but I generally feel as if most if not all ideas should have a platform. Of course, Tumblr and Facebook feel differently, and nothing can stop that except for the destruction of the way of life of everyone who thinks that adult content doesn't belong there. We will all continue to live, but an idea dies when a decision like that is made, and who is to say that they're wrong? I feel as if we are going through the growing pains necessary to build a society that values what the more influential group of people want.

but the devil is in the details — sign

It always is. Only time will tell if we can all make this happen or screw it up. It will take everything we have to make a future our posterity can not only be proud of but use as a platform to build in whatever direction they'd like.

Before the term science was coined, philosophy encompassed the "study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe" as well as the "study of the universe using our own minds". The diversification that happened later resulting in science as a separate subject is specialisation, just a normal part of the progression of the fields of knowledge. — BrianW

Sometimes I find it hard to decide where Philosophy ends and Science begins. I suppose that's why.

I think we make art to observe ourselves externally or from a less personal perspective, and participate in science in order to perceive ourselves as interacting in the part of the universe which we readily perceive. The art and science are both questions and attempts at answering them. I believe philosophy is both the questions and the answers, and the confusion in between. — BrianW

I like the idea of Art and Science being two pawns and Philosophy being the board, but I think that it may be a little less fundamental. Most of the time, any field of study is trying to piece together what happened in the past by taking what they know and theory crafting. (at least that's how I interpret it) So from that perspective, Science would be a piece on the board that questions what the board is made of, Math would be a piece that studies the relationships between the squares on the board, Art would be a piece that questions why it likes the board and thinks it's beautiful, and Philosophy would be a piece that asks why the board exists. Of course, I don't study all of those things, so I may be wrong about what they ask.

I think philosophy is what generates that beatitude which artists seek in beauty, which science seeks in knowledge, which the average person seeks in comfort and a sense of belonging, etc.
Those who would dig into the past will find that inventions and creations were just as much inspiring parts of our lives back when philosophy was the predominant field of study. And I'm not asking that it should retain its eminence, but that we should not forget its significance because there's much to be extracted from it yet. — BrianW

I don't think that philosophy generates it per se, more like explores and questions it. Before I knew about gravity, I didn't fly off the globe, but after I learned about it I found it beautiful and sought out more information. A philosopher, in that case, would wonder why I sought more information. I don't think anyone denies that things were invented in the past, and those were sometimes due to philosophers questioning, but Science seems to deliver us more inventions faster. I agree that we shouldn't forget Philosophy, however, just as much as we shouldn't forget Science when something that gives us more magic comes along.

I like your perspectives. I like talking here because people can point out flaws or interesting alternate points and not be angry about it.

Yeah. To give the people in those fields a little credit, I think they pretty much have to squeeze out something new to get a PhD. But this new thing can be very small, a mere footnote. — sign

I can hardly fathom that. If I came up with any new Math or Science or even Philosophy, even a small footnote, I would probably consider my life complete.

Basically we can have a friendly conversation right now because we recognize one another's essential dignity/freedom/value (whatever you want to call it.) We recognize that the other is 'cool' enough to talk to and listen to.I'd joke that the point is to get cool and stay cool, knowing that this word 'cool' is a little awkward here, a little uncool. — sign

I think the problem is that sometimes we ignore someone else's value. I don't know about you, but I have certainly done that before. It's sort of painful to think of all the people that could have increased our understanding of the natural world if we would have just listened to them. Even if they are wrong, the level of creative thinking and study it takes to create a theory is tremendous and should be rewarded.

So I would definitely consider you "cool", but In a different way than me, or anyone else. The root of all of this seems to be that some people's cool doesn't work well with others.

As I see it, most of us are lucky enough if we can just catch up with the conversation. — sign

I suppose I have a lot of reading to do. I have found that a common theme for my time here has been thinking of something on my own and finding out that there is already an entire library of books written about it. In that regard, Philosophy is much like Science and Math, because most people in those fields will never come up with something new. It is enough to understand though, so you can at least feel smart.

Last time I made a post here was about six months ago. I had always had an interest in Philosophy and finally wanted to get my ideas out there. I both regret and appreciate that. I appreciate it because it has given me so much more to think about it, but what would happen if someone never heard anything else about Philosophy (or any other subject) but studied it in isolation? Would they bring something new to the table? Would it be more useful?

I also need to point out that I learned a lot from my first post itself. People don't like history lessons they have already learned, and even when someone might seem a little sarcastic, there is always something to learn from them.

I suppose that's just part of the "evil" in growing and learning.

(None of this is original with me. It's just a paraphrasing of philosophers I like.) — sign

When are we not paraphrasing something that we have heard before? I've got a long road ahead of me in terms of reading in all of these things, but it's really the ideas that matter. Personally, I don't believe in "Intellectual property" because a prerequisite for property is the ability to solely own and defend from those who would want to steal. No one can "steal" knowledge because the owner always retains it. I, of course, understand the purpose of copyright law, but I also believe that the average person should have as much information at their fingertips as possible.

Indeed. So the question might be whether or not we actually achieve some terminus. Is the journey infinite? Or is there some kind of completion? Does philosophy only ever understand what has already happened? Or can it ever see the future and thereby neutralize it? (The future that we can calculate is already present, one might say.) — sign

We may never get there. That may not be where we're going. I'm sort of afraid of unbreakable loops, but maybe that's just because I'm not ascended yet. only time will tell I suppose. I still don't think any of this means anything in the context of morality since nothing I've ever seen or heard of has been affected by right or wrong in the natural world. In the end, even if mankind ascends to godhood and can shift atoms into new and interesting forms, they may never know what is truly right or wrong, or if there even is a truth about it to know.

I have always seen Philosophy as somewhat similar to math we haven't found a use for yet. It exists for the time being as useless but becomes important when we finally find a use for it. Philosophy is a study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe, (at least from my perspective) and Science is a study of the universe using our own minds. If we make art to explain ourselves and do Science to explain our universe, Philosophy is that missing link where we ask questions about ourselves to find out why we explain things. Philosophy may not result in beautiful pieces of art or life-improving appliances, but it does give ourselves an understanding of ourselves in a more fundamental and human way than religions. That is the gift that philosophy bestows upon the world, at least the beginnings of an understanding of the self.

In nearly every case I see this sort of thing it's some pointless complain by a conservative or libertarian who wants people to stop pointing out that genocide and slavery can't be whitewashed and that they don't count against the morally uosta ding nature of their great ancestors. It's so often so clearly self-interested that I'm pessimistic when I see this sort of thing. — MindForged

I've made it a point to not get involved in politics too much. Nowadays it's too much of a headache and you can lose friends over something as stupid as road maintenance. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people, but I intend to keep our discussion as civil as possible.

Here's my problem. Your post just says things and doesn't give any reason for people to accept what you're saying is true. — MindForged

That is a serious problem not only with my post but the nature of reality and human society itself. Anyone can say anything, and any proof they site could also be just as fabricated. I know very well that I will never have a true answer to anything, and that my puny human mind doesn't see the world exactly how it is and I'm very capable of making up memories or forgetting important ones. I find that Philosophy often deals with abstract thought and hypotheticals more than it does with actual "truth". In saying all this, I want a discussion, not a debate. (which is very rare nowadays so I don't blame you for looking for arguments.)

You're confusing the limits of moral epistemology (which deals with how we know what's moral or immoral) and moral metaphysics (which deals with what actually is moral or immoral). Pick a standard normative moral theory and it will give a fairly robust explanation for thinking that murder is wrong (killing is a broader class of actions, sometimes killing is justified). — MindForged

I will admit that I don't know the difference. I'm almost entirely sure you are more well-read than me, just like everyone else on this forum. However, my understanding of morality is more along the lines of "there is no actual moral or immoral, (So no moral metaphysics I suppose?) just what a society creates to keep its people in line." I know this almost runs in contradiction to my previous response, but there doesn't appear to be any indication of right or wrong in the natural world. This, of course, may not be true, but if we didn't take liberties, we would still be wondering if we even existed, right? All of that being said, I will look into standard normative moral theories.

Oh, and nice profile pic. I hope you asked for permission from the artist before you used it, but if you didn't, what am I to say about you being good or evil?

Man creating god from language is just a step in understanding ourselves then, in a process that culminates in us becoming gods. To understand is to control, and a god controls all things. We have slowly started asking questions about our nature, which leads to us understanding it more, which leads to us questioning more, and theoretically, this process continues until we completely understand ourselves and can change ourselves to understand the universe, then controlling all things.

To avoid being locked in this ideology I'll have to find a counter-argument.

I believe that your interpretation of the fantasy of western culture to be accurate. It seems strange that the west is also associated with democracy and personal freedoms.

I already knew about the quote button, I had just neglected to use it. That's my fault.

In futurism and Sci-Fi circles, the term "Post Human" refers to beings that have "ascended" to a different level of understanding or have modified their own bodies to suit their every need. A line of thought I have had for a long time is that power should be in the hands of those who are qualified to use it in everyone's best interest, but to the extent of my knowledge, there is no one who has ever lived that is good enough for that. Essentially, my only real political belief is that the perfect world would be ruled by a perfect leader who has ascended in some sort of way, to have a "god's eye view" as you called it. One true man to unite the fighting monkeys I suppose. Unfortunately, It's my belief that we haven't produced any "true men" yet.

I believe Aristotle spoke of a "Philosopher King", one who would rule according to knowledge. Of course, I haven't read his work so I could be completely off base, but maybe that was what he had in mind in a way. Or maybe this is just another evolution of an old crashing idea being resurrected.

Maybe we are all just a bunch of stupid monkeys. Our brains, while being the key to what has made us so great, are still lacking. 1000 years ago, no one knew about the electromagnetic spectrum, or even what visible light was. Their brains alone couldn't do the job of observing and documenting such things, and neither can ours. Now we have technology that lets us see what our senses can't. Maybe the answer to all our questions lies within finding new things to measure, and what locks someone into an ideology is their fear of the unmeasurable?

I feel as if that both tears society apart and shoves it together. What a strange concept. Maybe someday we will understand ourselves and then the rest of the universe.

I guess the question is then what "locks" someone in an ideology? I understand the problem you're referring to, however. There are many "echo chambers" on the internet especially that refuse to even acknowledge that there could be another side.

As for time travel, I like to think my younger self would listen to me, and that I would listen to my older self, but people often tell themselves they won't blow a paycheck on something stupid and do it anyway. Who knows.

I guess this implies you aren't human. I'm more of the line of thought that anyone who is can observe the world around them and make something up about it is human.

That's a really interesting perspective. I agree that I am certainly questioning, and that does feed into this cycle of moral development, but I also don't think that people who believe this "good vs evil" narrative to be stupid or even wrong. Many people have been wrong about both provable things and moral issues (at least in today's world), and I don't think any of them should be demonized for what they used their own intuition and observation to think of. If anything, using abstract thought to explain something should be celebrated because it's a sign of intelligence. even if these people are wrong, they came up with something, which is better than nothing and probably equal to what we have now.

I was along that line of thinking as well, that children should make their own decisions in that regard. I don't think Columbus was "evil" per se, and most of the things he did were just products of their time, but in hindsight, they were "bad", at least in the present train of thought.

So I agree, only teach what we know, not what we think about what we know.

I don't really know what you mean by "political leanings", I was just wondering about this kind of stuff. As for presenting things as statements and only using your own observations, I don't know what other way you would present an idea. How would you know something unless you read it somewhere or saw it?

Let me preface this next statement by saying I wholeheartedly believe that killing people is wrong. I think it's wrong, and from your statements, I assume you do as well. Clearly, Hitler and many of his followers didn't. What makes us correct morally in thinking that it's wrong? I know that it's wrong, and many people think it's wrong as well, but that's more of an opinion and less of an objective truth.

After a bit of a hiatus, I decided to come back to this forum to see what people thought about this question in particular. Since I've not yet taken any kind of philosophy course, I was excited to read that my thoughts about cause and effect and how the universe was predetermined had a name and that people had already been thinking about it for years now. I also enjoyed reading the various counter-arguments, and to the extent I've read, I see that most of them point to either the beginning of the universe lacking cause, or the true inner workings of things you can't sense. I think that mostly these are problems that could possibly be solved by further exploration of the universe at large, (Both space travel and quantum research) and exploration of the universe in different ways, (Finding all the ways to sense an object or phenomenon)

Overall, I learned a lot. I can't wait to dig into some of the books mentioned here, but I feel as if I should "build up" to those by reading something simpler and ramping up the difficulty over the years.

Is this evidential or just a gut feeling? — TheMadFool

It is evidential to some extent. I apologize if I didn't make it clear before, but I don't believe nothing exists. I'm more on the line of thinking that how we view existing objects is arbitrary.

As far as I'm concerned there's a limit to illusion. EVERYTHING can't be an illusion, especially our sense of self. — TheMadFool

I agree with this. When I said everything, I more meant every way we experience the world. Your sense of hearing, for instance, can be tricked by focused, weak soundwaves. That is what you are experiencing when you put on headphones. While no one else can hear your music or audio book or other media, you hear it like the performer was in the room with you. This of course, is not the case, and other senses verify that. Therefore, it is very possible some things in the natural world go unnoticed because we can't sense them. What we sense is very selective, labeled arbitrarily, and subject to trickery.

I may in time take interest in the Buddhist view on this subject. For a religion they have a strangely materialistic view on the concept of a soul.

Nope. I don't really know much about Buddhism in general. Maybe two paths have reached the same end? All I know is that we don't see the world exactly as it is. Everything comes together to create a facade. How we examine the world is not the only way to do so, neither is it the most effective. There are many more possible senses than the 5 we have, and they are very easy to trick as it is.

Are you saying there is no such thing as consciousness? — TheMadFool

In a way, yes. it isn't a tangible thing. Consciousness is more of a culmination of our senses in a way that makes sense to us, and that we can question. consciousness is just the brain translating for the mind per say. I guess the question really is, how do you know you are conscious? You can think internally, you can see, hear smell, feel, taste. I would argue a computer can do all of those things through various peripherals, so therefore a computer of sufficient hardware and software capabilities could be conscious. If all else fails, you could build a human brain out of synthetic materials, and I would argue that would be conscious.

So I guess you are the x. All of your brain cells and your eyes and ears and mouth, They collect information and that is the illusion. If we had more senses, there would be more of an illusion. All of this information is brought together in the brain, it decides what chemicals to shoot through your body, and what results is consciousness.

However, I gave an outline of various hints and arguments that this is indeed the case. There is a computational and epistemological argument that they cannot know anything beyond what they are programmed to know, and they are not programmed to be self-aware or other-aware, because they, lacking appropriate hardware, cannot be. — tom

In that we are in agreement. Self awareness is simply the result of superior hardware and software.

For some reason we find the notion that animals don't suffer horrifying, when it is in fact a blessing.
8 hours ago — tom

I think that it would be impossible for animals to not have emotions. They are a process of evolution, and are useful in the wild. If they didn't it would be better for us, but I don't really buy that my cat is faking it when hes glad to see me.

While I don't think that it is right to treat animals poorly on purpose, some killing is inevitable. Meat and its consumption is deeply ingrained into the culture of almost every people on earth. We are omnivores after all. Animals feel emotion, but in the human world, we overlook feelings for the greater good, so why wouldn't we apply that to animals as well? Death is simply the end of life, destined to happen from birth. Animals are our friends, and we should treat them well, but in the end, that's just how things are on our planet. Food chains and all. There is no reason to fear the facts of life.

As the more intelligent beings, I would like to believe it should be our responsibility to see to it that the life we are so closely related to and so dependent upon is treated well for as long as we can afford to let it live. Someday we will know enough to gift them with the blessings nature has given us naturally, and we will be able to very easily create identical copies of their meat just by having the elements that make them up. Today however, is not that day.

I've pondered that one. Usually I consider that most paradoxes are simply flaws in human language, but isn't human language just a product of its circumstances, those circumstances being the very nature of the universe? There is clearly many gaps in our understanding, most likely due to the limitations of the human mind, no matter how versatile it may be.

My line of thinking is that humans are self aware because they can distinguish themselves from everything else. They are aware that they are themselves. Animals more or less exist within their ecosystem. Of course, at the subatomic level, we are nothing but particles bound together but never touching. We are all just pieces of the primordial soup the universe is made out of, and will return to that someday. Animals and plants are one step above that in terms of scale. They are aware to some extent that they are just one thing, but still are very connected to the world. They don't seem to fully grasp that they are alive. When their lives are in danger, they fear primarily because of instinct, and not because of losing their ability to experience the world. Often when a person is on their deathbed or bleeding out, you hear them talking about what they are leaving behind, what they never got to do, fearing if there is anything after death. A dog or cat fear death because they are biologically hardwired to fear things that can kill them, same with humans, but when you see a man on his deathbed, you come to realize that there is much more than just a mechanism for self preservation at play. While humans are biologically similar in relation to their scale and reliance on biology to animals, it is the complexity of the human brain that brings the next level, it is why man is aware that it is a separate entity from the universe, or at least the mind is. While you need to consume resources from the universe to retain that self awareness in the form of biological life, you can recognize yourself as a separate thing entirely.

Or I'm wrong. There's only two possibilities right? What do you think?

My argument is that animals are not self aware because they simply aren't aware of themselves. Many animals are smart, and most have emotions, but they don't ask why they are smart or why they have emotions. That is the primary distinction between humans and animals, asking why. They lack the mental capacity to ask why things happen, only to investigate what something was or where it is. I don't know if you own any pets, but from every pet I've ever owned, it is clear that they lack this ability. My cat has a frequent problem with going to the bathroom on dirty clothes. If he had asked, "Why am I doing this?" I would like to think he wouldn't do it. It would be much easier on him and me if he had just gotten my attention and allowed me to take him outside. I dearly love my cat, but I understand that there is a difference between the inquisitive man and the curious cat.

Are you suggesting that all problems are mathematical in nature and therefore have a mathematical solution? — Arne

No, you have the chicken before the egg. T/F answers are what the world is made up of and math is a reflection of that.

Are you suggesting that people truly interested in the nature of being are going to satisfied with know that there is an answer but that we just do not know what it is? Either god does/does not exist. We just do not know which. But it's all cool. Few people have ever asked whether there was an answer. Instead, the ask what the answer is. Surely you must have notice that? — Arne

No, I am not saying people should not be satisfied with knowing just that there is an answer, in fact, that dissatisfaction is the major driving force for scientists and the rest. I feel as if you only understand what you wish to.

Seriously, a reading group for Heidegger's Being and Time will get off the ground in the next few days. If you think a computational approach to being is the answer, you need to get in on this reading group. It is extremely hard stuff, but you will never again look at the world in the same way. — Arne

The reading group does intrigue me however. If I am wrong, I would like to know. My view is either true or false after all. I just got my paycheck so if I have to buy the book I could I suppose

I know I said I was done but I just think it's really funny how you didn't respond to this

I am done. I can be no clearer.
— Arne

You mean someone doesn't understand your idea? That couldn't be evidence that you are spouting nonsense and refuse to reason could it?

I believe it is customary to tell you that I'm "Going to bed now"

Also if I ever talk to you again, I'm calling you "Mr. No Clearer"

QP really is intriguing. I can't wait to see what the minds of tomorrow can make with using it. I guess we do know there is an answer, but have no clue how to solve the problem. Only time will tell.

Is fallacy your word of the day? False and fallacy are not synonymous. In philosophical argument, a fallacy is generally considered a failure in reasoning that renders an argument unsound. On the other hand, false is an attribute of a philosophical premise and/or conclusion. I strongly recommend investment in a dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is one of the best. A bit pricey. But it should last a life time. — Arne

When I am wrong, I will admit it and improve. I now know that I was using the word incorrectly and change from now on. Thank you for that.

Statements having a binary truth/false value are "apophantic" and generally considered to have minimal meaningful content. — Arne

Why? Isn't that what all of computing is based on? Switches turning on and off to get to some sort of end. Isn't that math in its entirety? All math has a solution, even if no man has found the answer. Even if there is more than one answer, we know yes to those, and no to the rest. I don't think I have to tell you that we wouldn't be communicating right now if yes or no answers were useless.

And if you think there is any philosophical consensus regarding your theory of truth, you would be wrong. Your "state" theory of truth is a new one. And what good is it? And what is the status of the claim the all unicorns have purple tails? Well according to you, we know it must be true or false, we just do not know which. What help is that? If you are going to have a theory of truth, it ought to useful. — Arne

Why would consensus indicate accuracy in any way? The consensus has been wrong about very many things in the past, and it changes when proven wrong, because that is logical. Also, why would I think there was a philosophical consensus regarding anything? Isn't the whole idea of philosophy that there is no consensus until there is a correct answer?

This "State" theory as you put it isn't really new. As I mentioned before math, and science are pretty much entirely the studies of how things are, and proving that they can't be something else.

Regarding the in character sarcastic comment about unicorns, we know they don't have purple tails because we know unicorns do not exist, and if they do exist and do have purple tails, then that is true. And lastly, knowing that unicorns don't have purple tails and don't exist is useful because we now know that we don't have a missing piece of the ecosystem. If they did exist, and we just have not seen them because they are hiding, we would notice a lot of fields being consumed over night. Conservation efforts would be that more inaccurate because we failed to factor in an entire species, and that could have disastrous consequences on the Earth. If they existed and didn't have purple tails, we now know that we shouldn't identify them that way.

Essentially, you have challenged the idea that knowing whether something is true or false is useful, and you can't really argue that you'd want to know that it is true there is a spoon in your garbage disposal before you turn it on.

Seriously? Perhaps you should place your pride in who you are rather than what species you were born into. The former depends entirely upon your choices while the latter has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have ever done. — Arne

Quite to the contrary. The species I was born into is the whole reason I can be who I am. The human intellect is unmatched. If I was a dog, I would not be here typing this I assure you. In fact, I just asked my dog if she would like to defend herself. She met me with annoyed silence, as she was trying to sleep. I won't go as far as to blame my dogs lack of sleep on you, but I will tell you this. You have a distinct smell of arrogance around you and your posts. I refuse to go to name calling, and despite how hostile you may respond I will not. However, I will give some examples of your assholery.

Wrong.

You may rest assured that the others guy's mistakes are not as "unique" and "special" as yours.

How fallacious of me to expect people to actually make arguments in support of their claims.

When will I ever learn? — Arne

This one is interesting because you still never explain why you thought I saw someone else's argument against you, you continue to ignore the fact that everyone who has responded to you is trying to explain your arguments faults and is making an argument, and you decide to add a sarcastic stinger on the end. If this was "Snarky Teenager Forum" I would applaud you. However, this is not such a place.

Perhaps you and the poster have a different understanding of imagine. It never occurred to me that imagination must be limited to the logically possible. Oh well.

I am going to bed now. — Arne

I don't think the writer ever implied that imagination had to stay within the realm of logic. Again, you like to end your posts with some kind of statement meant to irritate and provoke. It's almost as if you want attention?

I am done. I can be no clearer. — Arne

You mean someone doesn't understand your idea? That couldn't be evidence that you are spouting nonsense and refuse to reason could it?

and please define "experience".

I will wait here. — Arne

He of course meant the experience of living, of seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, tasting. Have you ever heard of the term "I experienced ____". It's really the only way you can take that. If I'm wrong I would gladly take an alternate explanation, but I know you wouldn't, so I'll stop here. If anyone reads this far, this man is a lunatic. Give him no more attention, he only thrives on it.

Definitely some interesting stuff in there. Most of it seems like references to the cold war era. I'll have to give it a listen some time. I like to think that art is how the thinking man speaks.