If you found my post hostile that is on you. If every word you read is preconceived as being ‘hostile’ then it can look hostile.

I can only tell you my post was made because I thought there was something to talk about. If not I can leave just as quickly as I came.

One noticeable difference is that US Presidents, bare minimum, play at believing in god whilst in the UK a Prime Minister is mostly mocked/ridiculed for outward/semi-vocal religious faith (eg. Tony Blair).

There is no reason not to believe that we will be able to produce vat grown meats of extremely high quality. Until that day comes I guess you are stuck.

It is a nebulous term. The UK is classed as a ‘non-secular state’ in some ways yet religious institutions seem to hold far more sway in the US, which is classed as a ‘secular state’.

I just roughly demarcate in terms of political influence and sway over court and governmental proceedings … which leaves the UK in a somewhat contrary position as the Royal Family has legal power yet they keep these powers by not actually using them and remaining ‘neutral’. In the US it doesn’t take a genius to see that religious views play a large role in leaning governmental powers one way or another.

The term ‘god’ exists. How it is used and what exactly it may or may not be referring to would, by itself, show if any kind of proof was possible.

Most often people just say ‘it is obvious, look at the flowers and the sky’ or some such reference to the wonderment of nature. It does not appear there can be any proof of some ‘deity’/‘being’ but we can at least request a more precise definition of the term that tries to steer away from ambiguity.

This can obviously be a problem because if someone asked you to define yourself it would not really be all that easy as you may not know where to start. If the question is refined better then we might get further … for instances asking for a definition of yourself in respect to your occupation, family, or hobbies.

In a rather simplistic manner a great number of people encapsulate ‘god’ as ‘life’ in general. So think of your question as asking them ‘to prove life’ … that is often why the response is incredulity at such a silly question.

Nothing is really ‘religious’ by the same line of argumentation.

A tax office is a secular building. A church is a religious building.

Morality is not owned by religious institutions anymore than it is by secular institutions.

There are many areas where you can argue for some item of human experience being partly secular or partly religious. In political terms secular - which I believe is where the term is most commonly used today? - means the state keeps figures of religious institutes away from governance of the state. It is not an absolute as most things are not unless they are abstractions.

For instance the UK is a secular nation yet it is ridiculous to state that the religious institutions play no part in the broader political environment. I would say that religious institutions have far less sway in the UK than they do in the US though.

Whoever this Fumerton is they sound rather silly or you are misrepresenting their point … whatever it is.

If I see a table in front of me I do not question it as a table. If my hand goes through the table then I understand I am hallucinating. If I believe I can put my hand through a table when everyone else around me says there is no table there that is a delusion. If I see a rainbow in the sky it is an optical illusion.

The idea that we can ‘know’ in some absolute sense is clearly ridiculous and why I said it sounds rather silly. We do not look at every object in day-to-day life and question its existence. Anything brought into conscious attention can be readily questioned with some degree of skepticism.

Maybe he was asking how we regulate our skepticism and get on in the world rather than being constantly constipated with doubt about everything? That can fairly easily be accounted for through neuroscientific studies, that show how we are novelty seeking beings. What is ‘ordinary’ is roughly categorised as ‘existing’ and not worthy of any high degree of skeptical attention - unless it errs from normal experience in its appearance in some way. This is why when we walk into a room in our house we tend to notice if there is a chair overturned, yet on a junk site an overturned chair will unlikely draw our attention as it is something we are likely to see.

As for studies where people have taken hallucinogens there are reports that such experiences feel ‘more real than real’ and we could perhaps put this down to a novelty overload of sorts. Things that grip us so profoundly open up our perceptual doors and allow for the comparative drudgery of day-to-day life to spring into a newfound light and gain potentially more meaning along side the novelty of the experience.

I imagine a few people here have experienced something quite extraordinary in life that made the whole world around them look/feel somehow ‘different’ and ‘more new’.

Apocalypse means ‘to reveal’ btw. There have been numerous revelations in human history.

To follow that. The OP is more or less framed at living in civilised society. We can choose to leave one way of life and live another. There are undoubtedly a variety of hurdles that basically boil down to ‘fear’. That is a problem we have to cope with in some manner or another. It is how we falter and learn to imagine a new way and open up new doors.

It is clearly a ruse to use the term ‘comply’ here if he then says in the next breath that there is no choice. We cannot comply if there is no choice. We either live or die whilst trying to live. There is no ‘choice’ in this matter.

This is an example of being muddled.

If we cannot do otherwise then we cannot do otherwise. Yet you say we ‘choose to work’ … that is contrary. We literally must do something (work) to live … be this to gather food or hunt.

We can live or cease to live. We are most certainly compelled to live in almost every circumstance.

This is not a moral problem as all because it just is as it is. Like someone else jokingly mentioned we cannot rationally call ‘gravity’ immoral and think it will be accepted by others.

Humans judge other humans in some moral/ethical capacity. There is literally no judgement to be had beyond the realm of conscious beings.

I would still like to understand what difference you see between ‘life’ and ‘the game’ if any? I assume you must see a difference or your reasoning falls flat.

They are useful for removing a callus.

I’ve never met a callous rock :D

If you replace ‘game’ with ‘life’ then you are wrong.

Calling ‘life’ ‘the game’ is where I disagree. I guess you think the term ‘life’ is different to ‘the game’. If so what is the difference?

I do not see any moral problem or any gun to head? What situation is anyone creating? Are we actually ‘creating’ said ‘situation’ if there is some overseer with a ‘gun to our head’? I don’t believe this it what you are saying just showing it is rather nebulous.

I don’t see a clear thought expressed in what you have said. It is a mishmash and I think you could use more literal terms to help clarify whatever it is.

@Tom Storm@"Hanover” a metaphor is not meant to be taken literally.

Drink all of the wine, drink none of the wine or drink some of the wine.

The question of moderation is then understanding what drinking all of the wine is like and what drinking none of the wine is like. Moderation can only truly be moderate if the extreme ends are understood to some relative degree.

How much should ‘some wine’ be for one to drink a moderate amount. Can we assess such without first drinking too much and too little.

If people just comply there would be no political shifts ever. Clearly people do not always comply, do not commit suicide either, and make a rebellious change (via some form of paradigm shift or political revolution).

It doesn’t follow either that we must all suffer because of one person not ‘pulling their weight’ as you put it. Such individuals are often just cast out of the group.

As for the use of the term ‘produce’ and ‘production’ here I am not quite sure what you getting at? Clearly we do not sit and wallow in our own filth whilst nature peels grapes and feeds them to us. Having to partake in activities (alone or within a group of people) seems to be how you are framing ‘production’ as if ‘doing something’ is some kind of horrendous torture.

I don’t quite equate being mentally stimulated as some kind of horrific burden. The constant quest for more stimulation is actually a base instinct we have. We are born to explore and imagine the impossible, to dream up what does not currently exist. I do not see this as ‘compliance’ at all because we are not mindless drones fighting for some queen or delivering food to her doorstep. We are able to question the situation and reimagine how we attend to the world because that is what we do.

How about this for ‘production’. Beethoven produced some amazing awe inspiring music. Did he toil and stress for this? Most likely. Did he imagine his music was the best or was he driven by the magnificence of another? I imagine he preferred other’s music to his own. The point being untold joy can be ‘produced’ by some person’s lack of self perspective. Their production is not something that anyone but themselves finds inadequate … so if everyone is inspired by others then everyone’s toil and production likely touches more than one person in some way. The net effect being ‘production’ produces something for many to admire rather than just one.

We can feel sorry for those that produce what we consider the best in some ways because they are usually blind to their own talents. They can never hear the symphony in completion the first time or view the completed portrait the first time. All they see is imperfection, mistakes and think ‘I can do better’ whilst multiple others look on in wonder at what them deem near perfection.

Behind the pessimistic toil of work are multiple enlivened and inspired people. Perhaps one day people will read something you write and it will inspire a revolution that leads to a world and society where ‘pessimism’ is realised as a great way forward … but you yourself will likely never really think much of your own thoughts and have more admiration for the ideas and thoughts of others.

Life is not a game. All games are representations of life. They are our imagined dreams of what life can be in the face of the eternal failure to meet ‘perfection’ yet we can glimpse it through others (or in nature) and that guides our course if embraced with optimistic pessimism … they are the same thing after all.

Bye bye silly

‘Evidence’ is not ‘conclusive evidence’. Maybe that is why the world is mad with nonsense social media accounts of evidence being equivalent to iron cast proof.

I said the very same thing, with different words, in my second post.

And you believe those two statements are contrary?

You just failed your language comprehension test :D

But there is still no conclusive evidence that playing videos games negatively effects a childs score in an IQ test. There is, if anything, better evidence for the opposite effect.

This is not my opinion. It is the conclusions drawn from numerous studies. Maybe there has been something more recent I don’t know about? I have not looked into for a few years.

IQ basically measures ‘g’. IQ tests were originally designed to help identify students who struggled.

There are many case studies that also show how IQ test score are effected by the environment prior to taking the test where scores vary by as much as 10 points. Positive reinforcement and such can have a huge effect on performance.

Again, these are not my opinions. These are repeated studies.

You continue to talk nonsense so I will have to resort to ignoring for a month.

Maybe there is some topic where we can have a sensible discussion then.

Enjoy :)

You are confused. The value we we may or may not imbue pieces of paper with is not an inherent physical property of said paper. The item we deem ‘money’ can literally be anything we agree upon … yet a rock thrown at your face is always a rock thrown at your face (be it regarded as money or not it will likely hurt/inure you).

Neither god nor money are physical concepts so asking to ‘prove’ the ‘existence’/‘value’ or either is pointless.

Clifford Geertz made a definition of ‘religion’ and Colin Renfrew commented that the very same definition can be applied to money. Cannot recall the name of the book Renfrew mentioned this in but you can find the definition Geertz gave easily enough with a quick search.

Concepts ‘exist’ in a certain way. The comparison with currency shows this as a large rock striking you hard on the head is as for you as anyone else (regardless of their beliefs), whereas for ‘currency’ it is relative. Offering money to lion for some meat has no meaning to the lion yet throwing a rock at its head is pretty much the same as it would be for you having a rock thrown at your head.

Be VERY careful with the term ‘exist’ and clarify how it is being used as well as how it can be used and applied in another way.

Currency does not exist in the same way that a table or chair exists. The ‘use’ of something is often different from the reality - ie. I can sit on a table no problem but it does not morph into the form of a chair just because I sat on it (conceptually it is understood that I am sitting on a table though).

It is probably more or less 50-50 then.

I would say that there is a certain threshold where corruption had a tendency to slip in and I would also say that wilfully giving up ‘liberty’ because it is easier is also an opening for corruption to slip in.

Seam Carroll’s Mindscape podcast 189 would probably interest you.

You need to define what you mean by ‘power’ for any reasonable answer from me ;)

No. Nothing in studies done and research gathered backs this up.

To repeat. The more research done over time has pretty much ruled that out. If anything there are positive effects not negative effects (especially in terms of problem solving).

Many have made the kind of claims you are making and carried out studies to see … the results were no effect or the opposite of what they expected.

`Maybe I am coming across as harsh? I don’t know.

Your instincts are correct. All you have to do is look for the studied already made. Like I said, I have no idea what has come about in the last few years but know that studies before then didn’t show a great deal in terms of IQ (if there was any it was slightly positive).

The studies have been done and continue to be done too no doubt. If you are asking how they can best be carried out I would suggest via neurosciences rather than just by psychological self-assessed testing.

IQ tests are in and of themselves not exactly a ‘hard science’ measuring g but they appear to be the best we have and do a good enough job to point out that g exists (or rather was discovered via such testing).

The biggest problem with psychological testing is you cannot really factor in every other single effect so any results you get over a long period of time would be diluted. The larger the set the clearer the overall picture, but tests within certain smaller sets can shed light on other factors too.

This is more or less something for an experimental scientist to deal with and given that psychology is a particularly weak science (in terms of rigidity) neuroscientists are probably the best route to take.

Didn’t you know that video games have existed for more than 10 years.

Have you done even a tiny bit of research … I don’t think so.

AFAIK, no such extensive research has been done, games are a new thing, and it would likely take a lot of survey and research effort, therefore I think it's a valid philosophical question, ex. to draw some hypothesis or conclusions on whether it is worth it to conduct such research. — SpaceDweller

There have been multiple studies about the effects of video games since video games began. That is why I stated last time I looked (maybe 2-3 yrs ago) there was no conclusive evidence that IQ was effected and that in other areas (such as social ability) the results were mostly neutral or positive.

Games are useful for development. This is well known. As for effects on IQ there was no conclusive evidence for a positive or a negative effect.

Generally speaking I think video games are likely better than social media sites like Instagram.

Things are usually understood by how they are used, how they can be used and how they cannot be used. Definitions are not necessary to understand and function in the world.

When I see a table I do not open up some mental definition in my head that defines a table. I move through the environment mostly oblivious to everything around me.

Defining is a habit of atomisation maybe? On forums like this it is often necessary not to assume your take on some seemingly mundane concept/idea is the same as someone else’s. Then it is a matter of playing between being overly pedantic and overly vague. The ‘hits’ you get you know yourself. Sometimes just one hit helps you move forward and sometimes multiple hits just means you are just saying what other people say.

Epistemology is a mess of a category and hard to get to grips with.

We have theories of knowledge, different types of knowledge and how raw data is related to knowledge … as well as what we mean by ‘data’.

I would start by defining (or using specific definitions) of ‘data’ in order to outline how you currently view the term ‘knowledge’.

The often added muddle to this topic is ideas of ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ too. People often mix them up and/or use them synonymously. If you are trying to dig down further think about setting out some basic ground work upon which to establish an overall picture.

One thing that has to be realised it that you/we are dealing with ‘words’ here. That may sound obvious, but it is precisely the ‘obvious’ that can overlooked and taken as a pillar of certainty. What is obvious is obvious why/how? Going down that road will likely open up more ideas/thoughts/questions.

Have fun :)

Probably best to step away and just hope there is a possibility of a discussion on some other topic.

If not then so be it. Like you said, it can help to engage like this sometimes … sometimes it does not help at all. How to judge is your choice though, obviously :)

Your OP makes little to no sense.

Note: ‘physics’ as a ‘habit’ of the universe? How is that any different to physics as ‘laws’ of the universe? You do understand that ‘the laws of physics’ are not absolute but rather a ‘striving towards’ the idea that there are definitive laws/rules? Either way, they allow us to navigate in some manner.

It might help more if you look up the term Ontology and perhaps question the validity of asking about ‘beginnings’ or ‘lawgivers’.

To reframe the OP I take your meaning more like this perhaps? :

1) There are a set of rigid principles the universe operates under.
2) There are a set of principles from which the universe has changed over several stages that are fluid rather than rigidly set.

Either way, there is not really a definitive answer to this and either as a definitive answer would only open up more questions.

Yes. Better! :)

Just apply that logic to some of your other thoughts and questions and you might be more worthy of my time ;)