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.

how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? — Tim3003

Who wants radical change? To benefit whom? It serves as a means of bridging gaps and has helped some situations. It is not a government nor an independent body with its own needs and wants.

It is a decent idea that does some good. At least nations can attempt to talk within the idea of a unified front.

It is not a complete failure or it would no longer exist. I just think too many people look in from outside expecting it to be something it is not.

I’m not going into the whole procreate business again. No point. We are not going to see eye-to-eye there not understand each other because the problem lies deeper in trying to understand each other at all. So …

I would ask though that if the idea is to ‘prevent further suffering’ then death is the only way UNLESS you believe that suffering can be lived with and/or reduced/dispersed during life.

I don’t see ‘suffering’ as necessarily a ‘harmful’ thing. Black comes with white and comes with black. I don’t see how one side exists without the other nor do I see doing away with both (or aiming at that) to be anything at all.

It is this underlying issue that seems entwined around buddhism and is why I am not exactly in favour of certain buddhist factions. It is too much like living can be viewed as living as a zombie or as if life itself is illusionary. The ‘illusionary’ part is okay to some degree because the life we perceive is mostly a human life not some intrinsic connection to ‘the things in themselves’ and we live in a culturally defined cooking pot … so even the Schopenhauer ideas are build upon the vast waste of nothingness … the pointlessness, but we never see the pointlessness directly or we wouldn’t move.

We ‘live’. Why? No one knows. I think ‘why?’ as a serious question about this is quite meaningless if anything it meaningless.

History.

If your model predicts something with a good degree of accuracy under various different test methods then there is likely something within it worth looking at.

Comparing Willy Wonker to the universe is kind of missing the mark. The universe does not appear to be moral. People don’t ask to come into existence - that would be contrary to suggest.

The context is people are here and more people will come. Eventually there will be no more people. None of this is ‘moral’.

We are alive. Life necessarily contains some degree of suffering/discomfort. To negate all suffering means to negate all life. I don’t view reality as ‘moral’ anymore than a view a rock as ‘moral’.

What does this have to do with ‘boredom’ anyway? We exist. You asked what we should do in the face of the existential crisis in the OP. What do you think we should do and why?

Precisely. I mentioned it, in passing, in response to what someone else said. I even said I didn’t think there was much to it - other than as a psychological item. It is most commonly attributed to Freud I believe.

In respect of the thread, it is a reasonable thing to consider ‘crying out’ as a babe as having some possible relation to prayer. Personally I find ‘prayer’ hard to categorise. Seems like a very loose concept.

Okay. Learn read it is then. Bye

I did not. Learn to read or stop trolling. Not sure which it is you need to attend to.

By who? What are you talking about?

And?

‘of’ instead of ‘as’. Point being is a view about which I was generally talking about. There are various other views I was not saying this is the general consensus at all.