By men, I mean human beings, both men and women, who also equally succumb to power trips. I think the major difference has been the persistence of gender roles over most people's personas. With time, greater realisation of equality between men and women will result in greater diffusion of previous gender-defined roles and attitudes.

In another thread awhile back I suggested that an important method for saving the world would be to produce far fewer men — Jake

In 1750, when the world had about 10% the population it has now, it was hell bent on going through the industrial revolution which began the accelerated deterioration to the ecosystems and contributing largely to the present climatic conditions. I don't think the answer is fewer men, it should be smarter men. The better question is, what would contribute to increased social intelligence?

Agreed, in the sense that, the relative cannot contain the absolute. However, I also think that in any well-defined condition (with strict parameters), there is a maximum or most comprehensive amount of value/knowledge/morality which can be expressed.

From 'nothing comes from nothing', if there's intelligence in complex configurations e.g. humans, then there's intelligence in the primordial existence whatever it is.

My question is, what is the nature/character of these irreducible particles? What, how and where are they?

I have. Love the part about 10 million google servers, no wonder they're so much better than the others. And they're aiming for 100 million, whoa! Blows my mind-socks away.

I don't know why people tend to be over dramatic in the face of possible death. It's like they haven't realised they're not going to live forever. And what part of AI implies human extinction? That's just ridiculous.

Ok then, you have been discontinued as of 4pm today, given that you are one of many redundant human processors. Any last words, final meal choices perhaps? — Jake

Ok, let's make this real. We would have much more control over our experience of this forum if the humans were replaced by bots that could be customized to our own personal taste. — Jake

You jest, but there's great relief in accepting what we are. The harmony, power and freedom expressed in our ideas has, so far, mostly been only that, ideas. The truth is we are humans eternally constrained by our humanity, the good and the bad. Neither AI nor God can add or take that away from us. Human-will can never be omnipotent and human intelligence can never be omniscient, why cower in fear of death and pain when this has been our lot as humans? I'm all for exploring ways to improve ourselves and AI is just another option, nothing more nothing less. It comes with all the benefits and disasters that humans can extract. How is it any different from any other human creation?

First, I'm pro AI. I don't think we're worried about AI, the real issue is whether we, human beings, whose intelligence is exceedingly limited can overcome those limitations in AI or whether we would imbue AI with our deficiencies. So far, the latter seems more likely. Another problem to solve, yay to having a purpose.

My take is, intelligence was never restricted to biological, physical, natural, artificial, etc, mechanisms. We've just recently discovered how intelligence can operate through machines and we're freaking out. Intelligence was always destined to go beyond the human phase of evolution, whether it's AI or something else, bring it on. Did we really think evolution would stop with us? Personally, I want to see how far we can go with AI, not hypothetically but practically. I could care less whether I'm interacting with a computer, pet or human (and I prefer my pets to most humans) as long as I'm interacting the way I want.

Someone saying that their cat is jealous of another cat would be a fine example. Saying that an all knowing, all powerful, and all present being is angry is yet another. — creativesoul

These are not things we just say, but also believe and act according to them. After we anthropomorphise existences, we tend to demote them to lesser levels than us humans. There's nothing wrong with a deity or animal expressing emotions, the problem is having them express human-like emotions. Why can't human emotions be reality-like or life-like emotions. For example, we know animals came by, through evolution, earlier than humans. We know animals express emotions albeit rudimentary. Why can't it be that we express animal-like emotions? Now, if our emotions are of a higher grade than animals, why couldn't a deity's emotions be of a higher grade than a humans? The truth is we don't know because we haven't looked past our selves. Like I've been trying to express in my previous posts here, the reason we don't have more objective or comprehensive standards for our disciplines, concepts, attitudes, emotions, thoughts, etc, is not because of the relativity of our perspectives, but because of the pronounced egotism which manifests in ways such as anthropo-morphism/centrism, human exceptionalism and others (please feel free to add if you've got more).

I know at some point it was ok to anthropomorphise stuff to be able to better relate to them. It's like how we teach kids that there is the sun, moon and stars. However, at some point, they need to realise that what they call stars may be suns, planets or even moons. The same with us, we need to realise that reality is not limited to our perception of it. That's why I gave it that title, which I admit, is in itself deficient but, suppose the thought process attempts to go from a particular to generals, perhaps there's merit in that... ?

Part of the problem is that human language is inherently anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. — prothero

Yes, common usage has been towards anthropo-morphic/centric ends. But, we have the discipline to shade whichever meaning we choose and direct our philosophies and beliefs towards more comprehensive causes.

it would seem the OP is full of contradiction because of this (anthropomorphic, figurative, general and unclear language). As a result I don't really understand what BrianW is rambling about. — Nils Loc

The OP is a bit deficient but I hoped the drift would reveal my true intentions. I'm trying to speak out against the many factions of egotism which seem to hide in plain sight such as anthropo-morphism/centrism, human exceptionalism, etc, you name it. We have a tendency to see some of them e.g. anthropomorphism in a generally favourable light which, to me, they're the poison which tastes good and kills slowly. We seem to have reached a stage where one of our major limitations is that we choose to perceive the bigger picture as a 'pinch of salt' in our human 'stew' instead of vice-versa where we're the pinch of salt and the bigger picture is the true delicacy.
I believe we need to stop the many arguments in favour of any particular method, attitude, discipline, thought, etc., because we've come too far for such limitations to still hold us back. Why would I need one discipline, one philosophy, one attitude? At this point it's rather myopic, isn't it? I can enjoy/participate in multiple sports but I draw the line at multiple concepts? Yes, some may have more pros than others but it's all dependent on need and perspective and philosophers should know it best, perspective is the currency of every discussion. Also, needs change. So, it may even be argued that adopting multiple perspectives is the way towards more comprehensive knowledge and greater success in the overall progress, humans included.

I'm just saying, we need perspectives and attitudes that are less us and more everything.

Omniscience is an absolute quality. It is the same as omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. Whether it's possible or not, what has it to do with philosophical problems of skepticism. These are human problems, they are born of limitation (or ignorance).

Your atheists and theists seem too caricatured for my liking.
I think, just as theists believe in an absolute God(s), atheists believe in an absolute reality. Therefore, whatever there is right now, for both, whether a manifestation of consciousness, sentience, beauty, etc., is believed to have come from the respective origin. So, what's with the disjointed 'probabilities'? If there's beauty, it is there for both. If there's consciousness and sentience, it occurs to both.

I find there are two kinds of atheists => those who don't believe in any deity and those who are against the belief in deities. The former are true atheists, the latter are rebels, may be a-theists (anti-theists). The indifference of true atheists is just coincidentally (and not exclusively) antagonistic to any theism/deism, because those who concern themselves with theism, whether for or against it, still add emphasis to its significance. Anyway, your arguments do not reflect true atheism.

I think human exceptionalism would be a better term and I'm arguing against its prominence. The main idea is not to exclude exceptionalism or anthropo-morphism/centrism but to dilute it in plain unembellished perspective. Something close to a domain of 'practical sense', perhaps devoid of distasteful romanticism, un/super-natural metaphysics, unnecessary symbolism and overly emphasized materialism. We should put an end to the conflict in our perspectives between the abstract and material paradigms. Our intelligence uses both of them logically by expressing each to its own particular ends. The distinction between the different aspects of existence should be restricted to a relativity which does not succumb to prejudice in perspective. The more we dissolve into the 'whole' or the more every relative aspect is recognised to contain a similar 'genetic' foundation borrowed from an ultimate origin or association, the sooner and further we're likely to unfold knowledge of reality. This is because the same intelligence or mechanism which began our universe also created our cosmic environment and is just as responsible for our planet and everything in it including us humans. This same intelligence governed the formation of biological and non-biological entities. It evolved plants, animals, humans, and we rationally expect it to continue beyond that. Currently, the theories which are making the most advancement towards unfolding our knowledge of reality, are based on common features supposedly evident in all of reality, for example general relativity and quantum field theory.

It seems, this discussion may also be against -isms. I'm against any field of knowledge which does not recognise its relativity and, consequently, its deficiency and refuses to adapt or change itself in accordance with the necessity of evolution. Deists, theists, atheists and materialists quickly come to mind because most who profess to be such, are notoriously brazen about their small-mindedness. How can we forget that philosophy has been popular and relevant both when it advanced predominantly through the abstract and the practical, as in metaphysics and science respectively. Logic is not confined to the human mind; it is addressed in every event manifest in reality, whether abstract or concrete, mental or physical. We seem to succumb to an addiction of progressively creating more limitations to our already limited perspectives. The way I see it is, disregard of the more comprehensive reality which we are a part of should be seen as a symptom of ignorance and, no matter the school of thought or domain of knowledge, experience and belief, if it denounces any other without proper care to understand and delineate it, necessarily, it must reveal its own deficiency because, how can such inadequacy determine the bar of rationality?

Jack Sparrow: Clergyman, on the off chance that this does not go well for me, I would like it noted here and now that I am fully prepared to believe in whatever I must, so that I may be welcomed into that place where all the 'goody-goodies' get to go. Savvy?

Philip (Missionary): We have a word for that, Jack. You can convert.

Jack Sparrow: I was thinking more of an as-needed basis.

While the OP seems to support Jack Sparrow's opinion, I think the missionary's position is what religion sells.

The synonyms of the term fact include reality, certainty, actuality, etc. From these, it is clear what we try to mean by fact. Much of my knowledge about the 'first principles of things' is borrowed from metaphysics, after which, I try to align it to logic. I'm not sure whether the study of fact is within the bounds of metaphysics or epistemology, however, I have a strict definition of it:- Fact is that which is; reality; the absolute; the undeniable; the indisputable, etc, etc, you get the drift. From such a definition, it means I do not consider something like a table or a human being as a fact. That is because, there was a time when they did not exist and they can also cease to exist at a future time. For me, to suppose that there is anything beyond a fact is illogical (or blasphemy to sound a bit biblical). So, that component, quality or character of existence which is imperishable and unchangeable, I call fact. What we refer to as 'something' in relation to another 'thing' is, to me, just a configuration or expression of fact. At some point it (fact) expresses a human being, at another, a table. There also comes a time when they (tables, humans and the like) are not expressed. The why and how of it can only be understood by overcoming the relativity of perception, if such is possible.

Logic is an expression of the laws of nature (or the laws of life/existence, however you choose to define the components of reality).

1 + 2 = 3/a bolt of lightning, is not precisely logic. Mathematics is a language that attempts to apply logic to its mode of operation. But, it is only logical in the sense that language is a logical part of communication/expression. For example, an alien unfamiliar with our mathematical language would not know that 1 + 2 = 3 unless the values of the numbers and their association are taught to them. The alien may have their own way of expressing the same relation but it may be a different language than our mathematics. The mode of operation tries to express an already existing relationship (let's call it, 'the process of cumulation') in existence/life. Mathematics didn't invent 1 + 2 = 3, it just realised the validity of it. That validity comes from logic.

Thanks, I'll keep working on it.

The grooves will not drain the water down to below the level where the grooves begin. — Pierre-Normand

Suppose I infuse a needle-like intrusion to break the water's surface tension to prevent its meniscus from settling on that level of the groove and to direct water out of the tube as well? (Bear with me, I'm trying to see if I can cook a solution to these possible limitations.)

Oh, I kind of got ahead of myself and assumed that part. Suppose at about 90% the height of the tube there's a groove to drain the water. A narrow enough groove such that while water is still trying to rise to full height of the tube, the groove constantly drains it off the side. Can that work?

You've lost me a little. I'm not implying the use of plants or plant material, it doesn't have to be cellulose or organic. I mean to imitate the capillary action in plants by constructing industrial grade (metallic or some high strength synthetic fibre) capillarity tubes. I understand the need for sufficient hydraulic head and that's why I'm trying to figure if an alteration to the tubes themselves will help in compensating for it.

All activities follow a preset pattern. It's what we refer to as the 'characteristic' or 'nature' of something. Because of this, I don't believe in chaos or randomness. Anyway, that's beside the point, imagine two boxers fighting in a ring. They see where each other's heads are and they try to figure out how best to project their punches so as to hit the other. They do this with the knowledge that the other guy will attempt to change the position of their head to avoid getting hit. However, the mind takes as many factors as it can into consideration and predicts the best move. That prediction of the future is one of the more common and advanced activities of the mind. We may perceive the past but we use our knowledge of the 'nature/character' of things to conceive of the possible future circumstance thus upsetting the minimal delay caused by the process of perception. Also, considering the many reference points we use to define a circumstance, it is more probable we perceive reality (in the sense of a particular relationship) than not.

Do you think a design alteration of the capillary tubes may help to decrease water pressure as it rises? What would the design be like? What if the radius decreased with rise in height? Or instead of using cylindrical tubes, 'rectangular' tubes with thinner slits were used instead? Would the increased surface area and reduced volume be an improvement?

So it should be built on/next to a large body of water?

What about the process requires external energy input?

I only recognise it as cold fusion and I thought, as an idea, it was long dead and buried. Though, reading about it anew as LENR is quite interesting and really promising to see how much ground it has made.

How about the self-sustaining hydro-electric power plant? Think it's possible?

There's also https://lppfusion.com/ . — Posty McPostface

This is completely new to me. Will need time to understand it.

Not the first time hearing of cold-fusion (though I'm new to the term LENR) but I thought it was a white elephant. It has certainly gained theoretical ground but has quite a ways to go in experimental analysis before the average mind can have some faith in it. However, how many of us here are average? I love it.

A quote from: https://greenfiretimes.com/2017/07/low-energy-nuclear-reaction-lenr-a-promising-emerging-energy-technology/

LENR has the potential of generating thermal energy and electrical power. Eventually, LENR generators could be used in residential and commercial buildings. With a localized electrical power source at hand, how much longer would we have to rely on the grid? According to Dr. David Nagel, a research professor from George Washington University in Washington, D.C., “Homeowners now have considerable control over their electrical consumption. If they have their own LENR power generator, they will also have much control over their own electrical generation.”

I'm just getting acquainted with LENR but I think it's good to hope that we can develop that much in terms of affordable personally owned power generators. Fingers crossed.

I think the common good is invisible in some very individualistic mind-sets. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. So, I'm wondering how we can make our value to the common good be part of our common knowledge and not just something to agree on, but also to aspire to and actively participate in. How can we share the idea that we don't all have to be billionaires or celebrities or popular for our roles in the society to be of significance?

I feel like part of the solution is being consciously aware of the opportunities we have. For me it's time. Since I realised what a billion seconds mean I've had a constant awareness of the 'clock' ticking somewhere at the back of my mind. I don't mean in an ocd kind of way or a biological clock, but every once in a short while I'm reminded to direct my efforts towards others. I wonder if more people can embrace such a reality.

I get how circumstances can direct our perception of time, but I would also like to know what measures we can take to ensure that we provide as much utility as we can through the various stages of our lives.

So, my question is, "you have your one billion seconds, do you go investing where every other 'time-billionaire' does thus maintaining the overall status quo? Or do you realise the deficiency and work towards alleviating it. Which is more useful to you personally, spending the billions for personal gain? or for the sake of the greater collective even at your expense?

(I was watching Ninja Assassins and there's a quote by the master (antagonist), "your heart is weak because you betrayed your family for personal reasons" (I'm paraphrasing). Anyway, it got me thinking, isn't that something very common in our society today? - We don't take into account how much we have which is valuable to the society because we're too busy trying to get ours.)

After one billion seconds (or any other significant time frame), how much ability will you have acquired:

1. against the inertia of ignorance?
2. towards self-motivated philanthropy?
3. towards greater self-discipline (more conscious control of emotions, attitudes, thoughts)?
4. towards greater understanding and appreciation of life?, etc, etc.

Why am I me? — JohnLocke

Is one of the characteristics of existence self-assertion? And, if so, does it explain why I am me? Coz I feel like there's a part of me which constantly declares itself, perhaps as a sum of all the influence I exert, or as the sum of every aspect of awareness which I influence and which influences me (consciously and sub-consciously).

If there is smoke, there is fire. There is not fire, so there is no smoke. — Yajur

There must be context. For example, in this statement, it could mean that no fire is observed where it was expected or pointed out to be. It does not mean that fire and smoke do not exist.
So, in what context does God not exist and how have you gained such information, how have you interpreted it and what (principle, analogy, experience, proof, etc) validates your conclusion?

Ps. After the above process what you'll have given is your perspective. From it, others can analyse to see if it meets their standards of reason as well.

If you have to choose a single most convincing argument for or against the existence of God, what will it be? — Yajur

I don't believe in an absolute God who is also a distinct individual entity separate from me or others because nature, the revelation of reality, has not yet disclosed such. However, I believe in the absoluteness of the 'intelligence' or 'cosmic' activity which unfolds everything and which manifests in and through everything. The same 'intelligence' which we employ a part of, in our lives, is the same which governs our evolution, as well as the mechanics of the planets, solar systems, galaxies, universe and all in existence. The laws which govern existence are omni-present/potent and manifest omniscience in all their associations. Therefore, I believe in Fact/Reality and I worship Life.

Still creating dissonance.

1. If God exists, then he is omnipotent
2. No being is omnipotent
3. Therefore God does not exist. — Yajur

If you have already concluded that no being is omnipotent, what is the purpose of this whole exercise?

What are you talking about? You need to give us your definition of God and omnipotence. You seem to want God to exhibit human tendencies. Is God omnipotent before or after the creation of that stone? I should think that any being (not only that which is named God) is omnipotent if they have no limitation.
Your premise cannot assume omnipotence before the relevant factors have been appropriately considered. You should have said:

1. Either X can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift, or he can't
2. If X can create such a stone, then he is not omnipotent
3. If X can't create such a stone, then he is not omnipotent
4 Therefore, he is not omnipotent

From your succeeding statements, by God you already imply omnipotence which makes your arguments (1-4) illogical.

My dictionary (Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th Edition) implies there's a significant difference in the mode of operation of these two schools of thought.
That is:

Stoicism => an ancient Greek school of philosophy which taught that it is wise to remain indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

Cynic (Cynicism) => a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers characterized by an ostentatious contempt for wealth and pleasure.

I think, in principle, the different attitudes make them quite distant from each other but I suppose in practice, due to convergence from human interactions, they may have many characteristic points of similarity. However, I feel it's somewhat a negative transition for a stoic to become a cynic and would rather suppose the reverse to be more acceptable.

What about choice? Suppose God creates a stone and chooses not to lift it.

And this is because the relationship between "fact/reality and our perception of it" is unknown and unknowable to humans. — Pattern-chaser

First, I should repeat that we are like children, constantly growing and learning. Therefore, we may not understand everything about the relationship between fact/reality and our perception of it but it is possible to understand some of it. And from the tidbits we understand, it is possible, as some have tried, to infer of the whole, which is one of the applications of logic.

Nature or the laws of nature is that relationship between fact/reality and its many manifestations. Logic, on the other hand, is the expression (or mode of activity) of those laws of nature.

We interact consciously with the many manifestations of fact/reality which we recognise and we attempt to translate the logic expressed into the mental language we possess. It's not that we're incapable, it's just that the job is still in progress (and considering the extensive nature of fact/reality, it may be a perpetual engagement).

When we refer to fact/reality, we always mean the concept not the actual. It's like when astronomers show an image of a galaxy, it's just a model/representation (a decent approximation) but not the actual galaxy. It's the same with our reference to fact/reality - we can conceive of it to a considerable extent even before we experience it. For me, that's one of the utilities that logic presents to us.

The best way to conceive of fact/reality is as a union of principle and potential. If we try to confine it with a form, then it defines its own limitation and ceases to be absolute. — BrianW

It's a conceptual yard-stick e.g., ethics/morality, whose value is symbolic and only manifests in practical reality according to our understanding and consequent application of it.

But chaos was not yet to be. — Blue Lux

What does this mean?

You are oversimplifying the means with which we interact with reality. First, we know our perception is based predominantly on our interpretation of past experiences, which is why, we employ less restricted techniques towards discovery of the unknown. This is where conception comes in. The idea that our planet is a sphere/spherical was conceived millenia before the telescope was invented. The idea of the atom is also an approximation of what energy would be like in those circumstances. We are yet to observe actual atoms. Reason does not just employ logic to give context to past experiences, it also tries to project possibilities, and the success so far is because of the underlying fundamental unity of fact/reality which we all presume and are yet to be proved wrong.
It is unfair to suggest that humans don't have the capacity to know everything when we have a limitless potential to unfold. We are like children, we are constantly growing and learning. The coherency to the idea of a greater intelligence/system of activity which exists even in fields like metaphysics shows the degree to which we can conceive of fact/reality. Even though astrology is not dependable in the sense of constellations and the impact of celestial bodies on our behaviours, can you imagine how much information those primitive civilisations conceived of and the degree of proximity to the principles which they are based on. It is quite baffling that they would conceive of constellations (collection of celestial bodies), only for us, with the use of equipments for actual observation, to discover solar systems and galaxies. How ingenious is it for them to conceive of psychology based on a relationship of the external world and our instinctive behaviours. They may have put too much significance in the abstract but, considering how sound the idea of attitude and response to external stimuli is, all they needed was the right perspective and modern science would still be ancient metaphysics.

The limitation of perception to the bounds of experience is a significant one because it compels us to focus our efforts towards our immediate circumstances before we think to venture further. What good is there in knowing everything when we do not have comprehensive control of our persons, impulses, thoughts (biological, psychological, social, etc). Charity begins at home is based on a universal principle: you cannot see in others what you do not see in oneself. We cannot carry out conception without the development of perception, and the greater our perceptive abilities the further we can conceive.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." - Attributed to Albert Einstein.

However, without requisite knowledge our imaginings would yield little of significance.

As to the computer analogy, I think it is flawed just as the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis because they imply a separation between fact/reality and our perception of it. What we perceive is an expression of fact/reality not something disconnected or veiled from it. Someone said, "a logician could infer the niagara or the pacific ocean from a drop of water," the same applies to observing a computer screen or from the perception of an expression of fact/reality. If it hadn't happened, we would not be having these kind of discussions.