@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 ;)

More nonsense. If the sun was called ‘rain’ it would not be called ‘sun’ so the ‘sun shining’ is meaningless.

It is precisely these kinds of mistakes that result in gibberish.

The statement is just as groundless as antinatalist position.

To have the value of ‘better’/‘worse’ existence is necessary. The only possible door in to this as a reasonable discussion is probably to examine questions that address ‘value’.

Comparing something with non-existence is fairly pointless.

Note: I did not say ‘nothing’ because that is a concept attached to absence.

Digging deeper the most common misconception I find around these terms is based in Kantian jargon. The noumenal is not something we can even refer to, so referring to it is only ever a demarcation of the ‘negative sense’ as a limiting factor in our understanding. The ‘positive sense’ is (ironically) also just a ‘negative sense’ because there is no way to address that which cannot be addressed (by definition).

Even reading back the above makes this sound far more complicated than it really is. You just have to understand that if there is something that cannot be talked about then whatever you are talking about necessarily cannot be the said thing you are trying to talk about. Understanding this contradiction is deadly important from my experience. Not understanding this leads many down roads of nonsense and understanding it only helps guard against going down such roads as often.

Recently on this forum there is a growing trend of ignoring the questions posed leaving them unexamined or poorly presented. Not all sentences with a ‘?’ at the end are worthy of the title ‘question’.

An example: If yellow was called blue then would it rain tomorrow?

The embedded claim within that question is that there is a correlation between the weather and how we use language to name certain concepts in day-to-day life.

So it is just a stupid and pointless pretend question. Fair enough. Bye

Can people be banned for trolling?

Entropy. This is not a physics forum is it?

I prefer sardines not herring ;)

Picking fights? :D

Bye bye silly person

So the entire thread is just another way for you to argue for antinatalism … my mistake. I took the OP at face value.

The state necessarily manages the economy. That is the job of the state or there is no state.

Thanks! I assumed it was the name of some philosopher or something :D Guess I may as well have googled it after all.

How would it be hard for Putin to explain away anything? That makes no sense whatsoever.

When it comes to direct conflict the UN acts as a mediator as best it can. Putting troop son the ground but not to fight in the Ukraine would solve what issues? Centralising power on a global scale would help how? If it would help in some ways (I am sure there are plenty of possible positives) then at what cost? Would the negatives outweigh the positives?

As for global warming the issue is not really in the hands of the government at all. Corporations and public interest rule while governments are generally there to ‘serve the people’. Expecting countries like India to step up on the climate change proposals is ridiculous because it would mean greater poverty in a country where abject poverty is a serious issue already.

The UN is not a nation, the idea of ‘nation’ is silly imo. Either way, I have no idea how you the UN can implement a ‘radical change’ or what that change would look like.

The UN tries to raise standards of living around the globe (has succeeded in many cases) and one important role they play is in educating young women (that will have a tremendous knock-on effect for climate change, the world economy and peace in general.

To radicalise the UN into a military force (which seems to be what is being hinted at here?) is utterly stupid and dangerous.

Never heard of Laissez-faire. Any chance of a quick summation?

That is not straw manning. That is disagreeing. I was not saying you were saying anything. I was saying something. There is a big difference.

The difference in opinion here seems to lie in the term ‘illusion’. He didn’t say what I said … true. I said it though. The fact remains that value is a property of the living not the dead. Value is actually the very measurement of ‘dissatisfaction’ as you put it. Agree? If not why not?

I am interested in why ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘negative’ or ‘positive’. I do not see that it is necessarily Can be one or the other. If the ‘dissatisfaction’ is striving for something forever, and also a necessary facet of living, then living contains striving always. If there is a ‘better way to live’ then there is a ‘better way to live’.

Creating ‘more dissatisfaction’ is bad or good? Why or how is it or good or bad? These kinds of questions are where I see fault in what is being said. What Schopenhauer says (the actual one) is nothing because he is dead. He is no longer dissatisfied by anything because he no longer is. He has no negative nor positive take on anything for the same reason.

We are always striving/dissatisfied. Yes. What can we do about it? Nothing other than die if our wish is to cease living - which we will do anyway. Naturally I can understand the position ‘why live at all?’. Meaning is a strange thing we constantly seem to be clutching for even though we really know that it is unobtainable if not a complete lie.

When you accuse someone of straw manning when they have not even attempted to outline their view and merely asked for it then it is certainly about the ego. They are ready to take some of my views and paint them as an attempt to straw man what he is saying, when I do not know what he is saying.

A genuine attempt to look for clarity and some common discussion to be had cannot be framed as ‘straw manning’.

If I was to ask you a question and then share my thoughts on the matter is my sharing my thoughts ‘straw manning’ … no. What else I to conclude? The ego is out. The defence is up. Maybe I am wasting my time trying again.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I have read Schopenhauer enough to know a fair bit about his views and I am curious as to why this person is fixated on him (not interested in antinatalism though because we have been there before and it was a brick wall). This whole dissatisfaction and boredom thing though is something that interests me because it is at the heart of existentialism.

So you obviously don't pay attention to what I am saying — schopenhauer1

You think I have been reading every post? No.

Stop what? Trying to find somewhere we can have a discussion … no I won’t. We do not have to agree on one point to have a discussion about something else.

I’ll skip over the rest of the weird snipes at me and put it down to … you can fill in the blanks with whatever.

Content in last paragraph …

We are lacking in something present that drives us to the goal/basic need. We lack a fulfillment, and what we relieve it with is temporary and unsustainable. And thus Schopenhauer's quote about if life was of positive value, we would want for nothing. We wouldn't have dissatisfaction. But of course it isn't like that. — schopenhauer1

Here is where I see the problem. Life as a ‘positive value’? What does that even mean. If we didn’t have ‘dissatisfaction’ we would not be living beings. So what? How does stating that if we didn’t have anything to do, nothing to work for, no need to try and survive, then we would be dead make any kind of sense as either a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ value?

This literally makes no sense whatsoever to me. Life contains value. That is how we are able to attribute ‘value’ - by being alive. No life means no value whatsoever as there is no evaluation of anything by anything. The fact that we can value things means we attribute both positive and negative value to items. Not existing means absence of value NOT something either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’.

Lived experiencing viewed as negative or positive. Life itself is neither a negative nor a positive item but living is most certainly both of these.

I a not straw manning you here at all. I am presenting, as best I can, my thoughts on this matter. So PLEASE take them as they are and quiz/correct where you feel you need to. I am not hear to learn from you I am here to learn full stop so drop the ego … it is depressing and tiresome if all you give are barbs on barbs.