@ssu @unenlightened

I guess if you don’t agree that ‘propaganda’ is viewed by many as something mostly about patriotic ideals and nationhood there is not much of a discussion to be had here.

Maybe most people are more clued in to political wrangles (beyond state ideologies) than I give them credit for.

A lot of it is context dependent. ‘Conscious’ can simply mean brain activity and when it comes to talking about conscious states there is a blurry line of vegetative states that are sometimes called ‘conscious’ and sometimes called ‘non-conscious’.

Often when someone says ‘conscious’ they are referring to states of conscious awareness, but if you are in a deep dream state you possess ‘consciousness’ still. And contradictorily being asleep/knocked-out is not often referred to as a ‘conscious state’.

This is not exactly very surprising as the neurosciences are hard sciences, and ‘consciousness’ is a phenomenon that is tricky to articulate in terms of brain function and human life. It is further confused by psychological terminology wedding up with hard sciences in this area.

When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

The ‘answer’ is in the ‘question’. Why do you seek such ‘knowledge’.

In more explicit terms ‘knowledge’ is defined by the limitations it is bound by. If we can question something in some way then it is ‘knowledge’/‘known’. That which we do not and cannot ever question is not ‘known’/‘knowledge’.

Anyone whose goal in life is exclusively material, economic or social, does not serve you, and you should summarily distance yourself from these people. — Rafaella Leon

That literally covers all human activity. So no one is good enough to be a friend?

Demands are now for the territory they already held before the war started and a pledge not to join NATO, clearly not the original war aims, i.e. a change in government and Russian defacto control of the country. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Putin has been saying for a long time that Ukraine cannot join/apply for NATO without serious kickback from Russia. He has been pretty consistent.

Here’s something worth a look to help understand the historical context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he25Rl0fE1c

Articulating one’s feelings and thoughts through spoken/written language is very helpful. Anyone who has had to give a lecture or write an essay will understand how actually articulating ideas and feelings helps to refine them.

If I have a big problem I write an essay about how to solve the problem. Doing so brings to light many ideas and feelings that were hidden below the surface and either solves or eases the issue a great deal.

Thinking is very hard. Articulating the problem explicitly allows one to contend with it more readily. Pleas and prayers are the first step to facing the problem head on and bringing the power of rationality to the fore. Meaning, when we feel a situation is hopeless often we just need to break it down into smaller problems and attend to the one/s that are easiest to articulate.

For example: If you have an existential crisis and want to die, then write an essay titled “Why do I want to die?” Then you can just write freeform and get to the crux of the issue whilst offering counter arguments and balancing out reasons for and against.

I think this kind of question will become more and more of an issue as technology advances.

I mean this across multiple areas. For instance, if we could create a virtual environment that mimics murder or rape to the point that it continually creeps towards more and more realistic portrayals I think it is fair to say there should be some kind of law that laws a line.

I think any argument stands purely on something being ‘artificial’ as an excuse to do anything is extremely problematic as it effectively dismisses simulations that are potentially indistinguishable from reality … that sounds bad to me as if there is no/little perceivable differentiation between reality and simulation then they must be treated more or less in the same manner.

Note: I don’t think there is any issue with shooting games as such as it isn’t much like the real lived experience. If future gaming technology does make it the same psychological experience as a wartime experience (or close to it) then it should be banned (even for training purposes) because the harm war does is more than mere physical harm. This kind of thing was explored very nicely in Westworld series.

I think you’ve got that backwards. I think meaningless distraction is where boredom stems from. Freedom is also something to consider. All too often people believe they want more freedom when the real reason they feel bound is that they have too much choice and freedom and so get stuck in perpetual states of distraction. It is extremely common (in my life experience) for the remedy to any given situation to be the exact opposite of what you’d think it would be.

Lack of honesty with oneself creates ‘boredom’ and sometimes such states of ‘boredom’ are defence mechanisms that are there to balance our ‘mental wellbeing’.

I can say with age that boredom seems to fade? I’ve not done a survey on this but it has been my observation for those around me. There may be more of a lull in middle age perhaps but generally I believe boredom declines with greater age.

I think this is more of a modern problem (as in a problem of the last couple of thousand years ish). There is nothing to suggest that we were living ‘hand to mouth’ prior to this as there was a reasonably bountiful land around us AND far less distractions from reality (through media and such).

It could well be argued that having ‘leisure time’ is more than just a time slot for distracting oneself from existential reality as that idea is in itself possibly part of the modern mindset brought about by living in pursuit of distractions from reality.

In acts or artistic expression there is a kind of meditative state that I would call ‘distraction’ in a negative sense (like merely switching off by watching a braindead movie), yet it is more or less a way of becoming unfocused from day-to-day activities and it frees up ones mind to wander and nurture itself. Maybe creating art is just a means of recalibrating our emotional state in order to be more productive in the future. Some people just happen to be more attuned to this than others and so the ‘recalibrating’ becomes a pursuit of improving their ability to attune themselves rather than to do as a means of moving forward in a more concrete sense of production (eating, sleeping and social functioning).

Boredom for me is merely a sign that I am unconsciously avoiding a hard and difficult problem. It is likely a good idea to avoid some problems. I don’t necessarily think this problem is always ‘existential’ though.

Religion and Nationalist views share many commonalities. Neither countries nor religions exist, yet countries are more bound to the profane world than religions whilst both share many sacred elements.

Putin is a Stalinist not a Nazi. They are different but still forms of fascism.

Nazi is more or less distinguished by the idea of a superior race.

The term ‘Neo Nazi’ is often used are a pejorative term to smear fervent patriots and more right leaning policies.

As for Trump … he is out of the picture for now. Sadly those in opposition to Trump were more than a little too liberal in how they decided to label hi as a Nazi. Such labelling has reached out into the public sphere as well for the general populace and it has done little more than dilute the horror of what happened with Hitler.

Putin clearly favours the opposite extreme rather than holding a far right nazi view. It is no secret that the Russian’s HATE Nazis due to the conflict in WW2 with Germany. He is a Stalinist 1 million billion steps before he is a Nazi. The reason he is Ukrainian government is being duped by neo nazis is because most Russian people have just as much a pronounced dislike for nazism as any other country in WW2 (is not more so due to the heavy price they paid in blood).

It is a bit like calling radical Islamic fundamentalists Nazis … no. They want Jews dead and gone but that alone doesn’t qualify the, as Nazis because the reasoning behind that view is based on religion.

I am starting to wonder if I have sporadic memory loss in which I login here under the alias Frank :D

The reason I won’t participate more in this thread is because of these kinds of replies.

My reply was directed at a particular point about a particular conversation.

I was careful with my words and the overall point was to look into the nuance of the situation and steer away over simplifying and casting good against evil. I was in agreed about looking for a resolution rather what I would frame as finger pointing and division for the sake of division.

We don’t have, and won’t have, all the facts for a long, long, long time to come.

Putin stated quite clearly his concerns (valid or not doesn’t matter really). The possible reaction against what he was concerned about was not taken seriously. Putin has remained fairly consistent with his view and the west just didn’t expect him to go this far.

So I do kind of agree that it is pointless to blame one side or another. There were groups in Ukraine that burnt pro Russian protesters to death and there has been an ongoing war for 8 years in Eastern Ukraine (with very low coverage from western media).

To play Devil’s advocate this could be framed as a way of ending the war in Ukraine (that has been ongoing for nearly a decade) as no one else appeared to have been having much success and it is right on their border.

Point being there is nuance to what has led to this conflict that seems to have been purposefully ignored in certain areas by both sides for propagandist reasons. We can just try to read between the lines and look for a way to resolve this diplomatically rather than with conflict. I would like to UN forces embedded deep into Ukraine to observe, aid and protect civilians - even though the UN is not by any means always successful it does make some difference sometimes.

My personal opinion knowing what little I do is that I hope Putin will step back and someone with better diplomatic skills steps into his place and improves the current position of Russia. I think it was a mistake for Ukraine to push to get into NATO even though they had every right to apply NOT that that is any excuse for the actions and rhetoric used by Putin at all.

My biggest concern is that in the western world there appears to me to be an underlying frustration in the populace regarding equality and rights (across the group spectra of sex, gender and political stance) that makes people feel like they need to find a quick and easy reaction and to draw lines of good and evil so as to take sides. If this psychological analysis is correct then it will make it far easier for nations to mobilise enough of the populace into military action via a ‘good versus evil’ narrative.

Generally I strongly believe a great many people are desperate to do something ‘good’ and fight with their all on the side of ‘good’. The problem lying in this is knowing what is the ‘better’/‘good’ side and the need/bias to reinforce what one sees as ‘better’/‘good’. If the political powers can play on this issue let’s just hope they don’t and/or enough people in the general populace refuse it and make others think twice.

The road to hell … the more easily one can frame a side as wholly good or evil the closer we get to hell on Earth. Metaphorically speaking.

I feel like a lot of this is more or less a message to who comes after Putin as I cannot see him continuing for much longer (as in he will have to step back in his role as leader within the next decade).

In terms of scientific research/studies and psychology IQ tests effectively measure something we are not quite sure about called the g-factor. This basically represents an ability to ‘do well’ at numerous tasks. If one is good at one task then one is likely to be good at others. This vague correspondence - that can show consistently enough across various areas of cognitive ability - is referred to as the g-factor. IQ tests kind of measure this, but they are not exactly definitive and IQ tests were originally made to identify mental retardation in order to identify and help out struggling students.

In terms of standard IQ tests they are not particular good at measuring at the extreme because that isn’t what they were made for.

It is probably best to regard the g-factor as something like a physical limb. Meaning in an analogous sense ‘intelligence’ is but one of many limbs of human beings and having one strong limb does not necessarily mean you have a more capable human being in any regard … but as ‘g’ effectively measures a cognitive ability to achieve across all cognitive dimensions (in terms of dealing with novel situations and complex problems) it is certainly useful to say the least!

In physiological terms there is a relationship between reaction time and intelligence, as well as general good physical health. Creativity is also something that is difficult to factor into the whole ‘g’ area but they do - on the surface - seem to have more than a tenuous association.

There are various other real world factors involved in cognitive ability too. For instance, some people perform better in relaxed situations whereas a degree of stress helps others do better. Such subtle effects make a hard cast means of measurement/analysis difficult.

We mere persons living a life can only guard against what each side says and remain respectfully suspicious of the various wants and needs from nation to nation and pray that the disintegration of the idea of ‘nation’ will not be too bloody this century.

Again, it's not about whether it's OK, we're not standing in judgement. It's about what to do about it. — Isaac

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

It depends on the religion and philosophy in question. Undoubtedly there are crossovers in some areas more than others.

1- Yes, it exists. It isn't what most people consider it to be though.

2- Obviously. I think it is generally harder to do though as the 'mystic' (and therefore the practical use) is generally steeped into ancient (often fictitious) traditions. People who are good at it can get past that easily enough I reckon.

Note: We are talking about age old practices of what we would likely frame today as propaganda and psychology. It is, in simplistic terms, a very complex form of self-hypnosis.

Internet created a "free" status of awareness where it looks like it doesn't seem to have negative impact when you hurt someone. — javi2541997

This and then some. There is a culture of 'knight in shining armour' too. Those who come running to rescue of anyone who cries loud enough. It is a pitiful display. Kids being exposed to the stupidity may actually learn from it (something Alan Moore commented on in a lecture he gave years ago).

Kids can adapt and change. They are smarter than adults in terms of plasticity. Adults are now fairly spread across the generational strata of those who grew up without the internet and those who cannot remember a world without it. I sit pretty much at the crossroads being around 16 yrs old when the internet really picked up pace and everyone suddenly had a mobile phone in their hand.

I imagine in the future people won't say 'goodbye' they will say 'like and subscribe' :D

There is no room for 'offensive' speech on the internet. That means there is no room for free speech on the internet.

There are 'rules' in place everywhere (even university forums) that require something they call 'online etiquette'. This is then used to smear people. It has always been like this in day to day life but now there is no face-to-face interaction where it is needed most.

My current position is that it is probably not only not worth the effort to try in this area most of the time, but also detrimental in the long term. The real discussions need to be held in the space breathing the same air. Anything short of that is going to embolden the antagonists until society as a whole adapts to internet interactions (by which time it will likely have already become obsolete and replaced by something better or worse).

Why the hell not? — Bitter Crank

Because I simply wanted to show people what others thought.

I did respond a little. This, and many other forums, lack mature discussions on sensitive topics. It usually just ends up as a shit flinging contest with no one listening.

I think it just boils down to people not being able to respond with nuance in real time whilst sharing the same space with each other and looking each other in the eye. I don't think there is much hope for reasonable discussions on sensitive topics (the most important topics) when both parties are physically distanced from each other.

I'm starting to question whether we should even bother? Has my posting of this thread made things better or worse in terms of understanding each the different views people hold ... I would say for most it is could well be more harmful.

If people cannot use a sympathetic ear to either correct or question views/statements made by others then I don't see the point.

Just wait. CRIPSR will change everything soon enough (as in easily within the century).

And that is not "thinking"? — jgill

That isn't what I said. If it was a rhetorical question remember to leave the '?' out next time.

If in the future you need heart surgery I'm willing to perform the operation. Okay?

I am just about to slice off some pieces of chicken from a carcass btw just in case you assumed I didn't know my way around a knife or how to slice through flesh.

A thinker is a thinker. A philosopher sometimes isn't much of a thinker at all. Some philosophers dedicate their lives to scholarship only. Meaning they study and analyse the works of other's before them and/or critique contemporary works (be they standalone works, other commentaries or other scholarly works).

Philosophy is a very broad category as are many other fields. In fact today there seems to be a bigger emphasis/attraction to broader knowledge rather than expertise in one particular area. Discussing that is not merely a philosophical area it touches other parts of the humanities and each has something to offer to the discussion.

Some who produces art is not necessarily an artist in any meaningful sense of the term when it comes to appreciation. If I open a restaurant and produce food people spit out and demand refunds for does that make me a chef/cook? I may be trying to be a chef/cook but if literally no one swallows my food other than myself can I really claim that title with any degree of seriousness when asked about my ability to produce food for mass consumption. I don't think so somehow.

There are other areas where one act is deemed lawful in one situation and not lawful in another. The most obvious example being killing a fellow human. In war it is encouraged whereas in peaceful societies it is frowned upon (to say the least). For these kinds of reasons simply stating that someone is or isn't this or that needs to be done carefully and in agreement with the consensus and from there you can then perhaps to question the consensus view by applying critique of it. Such can be viewed as political, philosophical, or anthropological lines of questioning (to name but a few) that engage with reviewing the said consensus and investigating more closely some fringe ideas/views.

I have nothing to say about how someone was viewed a century ago other than through making some judgements based loosely on historical evidence. If someone today calls themselves an artist and no one has even looked at their work, and/or those that have do not view it as worthy of that label, then I would not be inclined to call them an artist at all. Why would I? I would still encourage them i fthat is where their passion lies though and perhaps may discover that they have an artistic eye if not an ability to produce anything much of note.

Different scenario and not really pertinent to what I was saying.

(2 water molecules) — CallMeDirac

Saying something doesn't make it true. I wouldn't call you a philosopher or a serious thinker looking at your posts. Someone curious and likely to dig further in the future? Yes. Go for it! I wish you the best even though it may sound like I am not offering much encouragement here.

I don't waste time sugarcoating things for people as I don't think it is useful for them.

Just writing doesn't make one a writer, writing as a hobby and writing simply because one enjoys writing makes one a writer. — CallMeDirac

In one way yes. In another no. If no one reads it then you're not really much of a writer and people would probably say that you think you're a writer rather than actually call you a writer.

I would still say of such a person that they enjoy writing though and encourage them to do what they enjoyed. That doesn't make them a writer in everyone's view though unless we're talking on a superficial level.

This reminds me a bit of people saying they are a writer simply because they have written something. There needs to be a degree of understanding and ability within a certain area to claim reasonable ownership of the label.

There are situations where someone with no formal training in something are particularly good at it - say a mechanic. In those circumstances I have no issue with calling someone a mechanic if they can fix several broken cars without any issues. In terms of philosophy I wouldn't call someone who has literally never read a single work of philosophy from cover to cover a philosopher under any circumstances just like I wouldn't call someone a mechanic merely if they have only read books about how to fix cars.

This may seem contradictory in some terms, but to someone who has read enough philosophy and/or has a reasonably decent analytic mind they can see what I am getting at here. That is the 'practice' of philosophy requires engagement with current ideas be they oppositional or otherwise (oppositional is likely more fruitful though).

Contemplating the meaning of life is nothing at all if there is no give and take. For two people in a room discussing such we could say what they are doing is 'philosophical' but that doesn't make them philosophers. Perhaps they are on their way to becoming more involved with philosophy but the threshold from not being a philosopher to being one is not really a line at all any more than we can say with any conviction that x amount of water molecules are needed for water to be considered 'wet'.

I feel sorry for the horse.

I'm glad I seemed to have managed to express this well enough to make sense (for a change!).

It is probably one of the most common misconceptions of Kant's work I come across and some people just cannot see it likely because it is so blindingly obvious and they don't see the importance of stating something so obvious. Others are just atheists or theists trying to force views upon others by taking his words and terms out of context to justify some silly political view.

Again, I can argue the opposite with just as much force so I don't see a way saying much decisively.

Plus the world is not 'overpopulated' nor does that seem likely to happen. It terms of resource management there is certainly room for improvement. Germany has scraped nuclear energy which is most certainly a backwards step in terms of efficiency and general pollution. There are political games at play and society at large seems to be struggling with adapting to mass communications.

As with the industrial revolution I see something similar happening now with the internet revolution. Lots of doom and gloom that will likely amount to nothing much other than a flash in the pan. The CRISPR revolution is going to be something far beyond my comprehension and I'll see its birth in the world of commerce before I die most likely.

We cannot talk of, or about, a 'thing' that we're at base level incapable of experiencing. It is not an it, it has no 'thinghood'.

Our world, our entire world, is phenomenon. Noumenon in a positive sense isn't anything we have any relation to and as we are here talking about 'noumenon' it is only in the negative sense as a marker for the limitation of our sensible experience (sensible in the terms of how Kant uses the term 'sensible' ... experienced).

If there was noumenon then we wouldn't be able to refer to it or articulate it in any form. Think about it a little. The thing-in-itself cannot be referred to on those terms in any way that makes any sense. It is only our habit of inferring that leads to the belief in some 'otherness' that is beyond our realms of comprehension ... but if some said item is beyond our realm of comprehension then our merely stating the possibility of some item is referring to some item and that is contrary to the said item being 'beyond comprehension'.

We can talk of a square circle and conjure up some image merely by stating it. Stating something gives it authority even though it is a construct based on experience.

I cannot do much better than that without writing a helluva lot more ... I don't want to right now, so hope that gives you food for thought at least.

Following Kant, we obviously construct the phenomenal world we know out of the noumenal world in some way - presumably from the sensations which present themselves to our consciousness. — Tom Storm

No. Let me find the only quote that matters here ...

"The concept of noumenon is, therefore, only a limiting concept, and intended to keep claims of sensibility within proper bounds, and is therefore only of negative use. But it is not mere arbitrary fiction; rather, it is closely connected with the limitation of sensibility, though incapable of positing anything positive outside the sphere of sensibility."

- B311,312/A256

In short there is no noumenon other than the concept used in relation to phenomenon applicable ONLY in a negative sense.

@L'éléphant Apologies. I was lazy that day and didn't bother to read the OP :D

What you have posed is a possibility but we can argue the opposite too. How can we measure this realistically? I don't think we can as there are far to many factors involved and many cognitive abilities are not exactly well understood by any means.

For the sake of arguing against I could suggest that agriculture allowed us to free up our time and work together in groups more easily (specialisation). Of course there are counter argument to this too as there is reasonable evidence to suggest that human collaborated on a pretty large communal scale prior to the full blown advent of sedentary living and/or agriculture.

I would also argue that 'intelligence' for humans is something that expands due to better lines of communication and interaction (something that has become increasingly prominent in the modern era), but again I could offer up an opposing view that may partially agree with this overall, yet question whether or not there is an optimal amount of 'communication and interaction' and that too much of this would actually start to reverse progress.

Finally, one more part of this puzzle ... education and pedagogy at large. We seem to have struggled to adapt our education facilities to changing times of late. The industrial revolution had, in my view, a partly detrimental effect upon education standards as it copied and pasted the 'factory' method by viewing schools as factories for employable citizens. In our times now I think this has mostly been realised, yet not by any means addressed fully. Now we have a weird social landscape in which there seems to be a growing inclination to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of educational syllabuses and the general view of pedagogy at every stage from primary school to university (although the latter is a little more robust imo).

Less intelligent? I don't think so but it could be true; in terms of genetic predisposition. I think it is more about our educational systems lagging behind population growth, political shifts and trends, and increasing technological advancements that we've had little time to fully utilise.

Seems like people are oblivious to the fact that this isn't a problem. As Frank states the population will plateau (likely at around 10 or 11 billion after getting up to maybe 14 billion).

The planet can sustain that many people. If not something called 'death' soon deals with the problem. There is absolutely no reason to believe that overpopulation is an issue other than we're likely to have to address what people are going to do with themselves ... that is a slight worry but people awaken eventually

In terms of food and farming there isn't an issue. The same kind of doom and gloom happened in the 70's I believe then suddenly there was enough grain to feed everyone and still is. Although there are still people starving on Earth today the percentage of the population suffering in this manner has dramatically decreased and there is nothing I can see that is going to reverse this trend any time soon.

I believe such talk stems from some psychological condition we go through at a certain age/maturity in our lives. Perhaps all this talk has more to do with personally coming to terms with our own mortality and projecting out into the world at large?

My general point was that in a crowd the loudest voice is easier to hear. Societies today are based around larger and larger sections and groupings whom people feel the need to associate to.

You have a far better chance to be hear and gain support among ten people than amongst one hundred.

If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will. — L'éléphant

As someone else notes there is a difference between IQ and being intelligent I think? At least in general parse. Even so, those with top heavy 'g' (the element IQ tries to measure) tend more towards caution and people en masse usually side with promises rather than estimations with nuance attached the more pressing the problem/subject is.

Even if we have smaller brains now that doesn't make us less intelligent. This is a common misconception.

We have domesticated ourselves which could possibly have effected our cognitive abilities as it has with other domesticated animals ... but we were actively selecting in those cases so maybe not the best comparison.

One thing I think we should take into account is that smart people will likely shine brighter within a certain population range. In a group of ten people the smartest will likely be clear, whereas in a group of more, at some point, they may not shine as bright.

The smartest human in the world today will probably not be appreciated by m/any around them beyond those close to them. In smaller groups the ability to shine is more easily recognised.