The knowledge of God is lost to the sands, leaving the modern ant that knows nothing of its past to trample it unwittingly.

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I think you understood.

I meant to say, that all references made are made to and/or from a static present.

But the referencing itself is not static.
It is, for lack of a better word, flowing - hence flowing in and out of stillframes and presenting, not merely present.

So by saying there is no static presenting, you would be saying there is no static present from within the static present.

So

There is no "static present", really, for us — Janus

I would agree, that it is not perceivable.

I just think you shouldn't view bias with such discomfort and try to run away from it as from your own shadow.

I'm not asking for logic.
I asked you, why do you continue living?
Will you or won't you and can you or can't you answer why?

Don't give me a comparison.
Give me the reason as to why you are living right now. A straight answer.

Just answer the question, please.

Why do you continue living, despite having been exposed to negative experiences and are possibly going to continue to be exposed to such?

I'm not wired as you are. Something that seems easy for you to do ... can be much less easy for me. A little understanding would be nice? :confused: — Pattern-chaser

That's why I said, this is an opportunity to work on that.

If you pity yourself, it won't get easier.
If you practice, it might.

A lack of will-power — Pattern-chaser

This is the opportunity to work on that.

The video about the soldier was supposed to just provide a starting point, a context. Besides I think people appreciate actors on their ability to portray the character well, costume designers who accurately replicate the clothes of a period and how the script reflected the linguistic characteristics of a period among other things. — TheMadFool

Okay.

The answer to your question is solidarity. People want realism due to solidarity.
In an attempt to relate to the portrayed, people will ask for accuracy - in the same way a psychologist would.

It's the reason why superheroes are also portrayed leading regular lives.

Nothing.

Embracing biases is almost like embracing willful ignorance. — Swan

Do you not embrace your own bias against hate?

You're conflating the desire for accuracy with the desire for violence.

I'll attempt to explain.

An animation is the composite of two or more stillframes.
If we are to perceive the animation at whole, it is entirely present and static.
Likewise each frame by itself is a static present bit.

But if we were to emulate these frames, i.e give them an angle or keyframe - then through a rotary process, one may produce a momentum or tempo which animates what is still.

One could make more or less the same analogy through/with light.

So in summary, there is a static present but it's not perceivable from within the frame of reference; so if you were to slightly edit your claim as 'static presenting' then I would be inclined to agree.

There is no "static present", really, for us, there is just past and future in the sense that we cannot speak about the present until it is past. — Janus

Are you sure?
What about an emulated static present?

The reason I don't like the connotation "preference" in the context of morality is that it implies the person decides what is good and evil, which foregoes the purpose of morality, in my view. — Tzeentch

I quite agree and find that the word moral is often used in place of the word pleasing, while rather it is more akin to beneficial. Bitter medicine for instance isn't all too pleasing, but is beneficial in that it is medicine - and as it heals and/or prevents ills, is thus moral.

In situations such as Zimbardo's experiment (under the assumption it was carried out legitimately), external pressure often prevails over a person's ideas of morality. — Tzeentch

Perhaps it does and that would suggest that a person's character is often very flimsy, and associates with pleasure more often than with responsibility.
But I do think that, having said that, the final call rests with the person's character which gives it at least a little more weight over external pressure.

So, perhaps we're in agreement, if I've at last read through everything correctly?

Thank you Hanover, very cool!

Quite the opposite.
It's not deep enough.
I'm gonna need a bigger grave.

If morality isn't based on the value of things - as right and/or wrong, then what is it based on?

Also, while morality itself may not be an object of preference, personal morality certainly is. Or am I mistaken?

I suppose I could've specified external circumstance, but I thought this was self-evident in the context of the discussion. — Tzeentch

Just checking.

On that note, I don't see the aforementioned premise as common knowledge. Rather, I find the idea that the interpretation of external circumstance, based on personal values, is the driving force of human behaviour.

Hence why two different people may exhibit different behaviour in the same circumstance i.e fight or flee.

The premise that human behavior relies a lot more on circumstance than it does on personal morality? — Tzeentch

Isn't personal morality a circumstance, and the most determining circumstance at that?

Thank you for the insight.

I wonder specifically however, do you think that the change of mind of a non-demented or by some rule of thumb 'mentally competent' patient, does and should hold more weight - than that of the opposite?

Quote the passage where Jesus calls for his enemies to be put to the sword. — DingoJones

Go ahead, enlighten me and quote it yourself.

Draw me a 3 sided square.

Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

From the New Testament AKA Christian Bible.

Yeah, and those atheistic cavemen were having an anti-religious war with the mammoths.

What's next, Sparky?

No — S

You've got nothing to show, and your statement is invalidated.
No backtalk.

I wasn't addressing that part, genius. I was addressing your false and absurd claim that the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. You're also wrong to say that the Crusades and the Inquisition weren't religious or Christian. They obviously were. You're the one talking gibberish. — S

Blah, blah, blah.

They weren't Christian since Christianity doesn't solicit war - it calls to love your enemies.

Save your sermons for your cult of ants, I'm not interested.

It isn't. And a few examples here and there which I might agree with won't be enough to make it just right, so don't bother going down that road. — S

Point out the examples that are wrong.

Don't be absurd, of course it has something to with religion. Even that's an understatement. Papal primary is an ecclesiastical doctrine. — S

Read the fine print, kiddo.
It has more to do with politics.

You're mouthing off gibberish before the statement's even sunk in.

That's true, but if why is it that laws are so in line with Christian morality in the U.S.--and are such a struggle to change from that? I don't think it's just a coincidence. — Terrapin Station

Maybe it's because Christian morality is just right?
There's plenty of people who uphold Christian morals without calling themselves Christians or taking part in any 'religious' activity.

It is not religion but the religious right. They are enormously influential in matters of reproductive rights, education, limited government, and geo-politics. — Fooloso4

Okay, maybe they are.
But I don't see them as more influental than common sense.

Either way, that has more to do with politics than religion, so again it's the same as how the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion.

That is true, but one's own views on the morality of abortion and a powerful, well-organized religious movement capable of influencing state and national law are two very different things. One need not be religious to be opposed to or non-religious to be in favor of reproductive rights. — Fooloso4

The movement could be non-religious, and accomplish the same results - because it's powerful and well organized.

To summarise:
The problem, if there is one, isn't with religion, but that plenty of money and power hungry people flock to it.
The issues raised are in due to a pseudo or pretend religious mafia.

but it comes down to the religious beliefs of a powerful few who determine what is permissible. — Fooloso4

While you're likely right, I don't think religion holds the weight that you think it does, regarding the matter.

As these beliefs are based on morals that may be upheld by anyone, religious and non-religious alike.
Favouring the fetus' right to live over the mother's complacency isn't necessarily religious.

River = left fork + right fork — Andrew M

Three Magnemite = Magneton.

Fair enough.

Purpose of the question was about dealing with amorphous solids, as metaphysics is amorphous physics. Understanding metal then would be of vast significance, I think.

It appears you've misinterpreted my query.

How so?
Metal like oil isn't distinctly solid, but amorphous.

Your world is your reflection.

Why not in between solid and liquid?

Earth, water, air and fire = solid, liquid, gas and energy. Not so far from modern science? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Where would you put metal on that scale?

Ye've found th' pattern, have ye?

Fair enough, though I do think you stand out by the theme of your threads.

Likewise, I find that the objective reality thread died too soon in comparison to some of the regularly refreshed garbage.

Leo as in lion.
But you're not around producing animosity or prideful roaring.

So it's ironic.