Buddha is not a man; Prince Siddhartha is.
Jesus Christ is not a man; Jesus of Nazareth is.

Let's infer a substitute:
1. Persona is corpus.
2. Corpus is persona.

Does it appear more coherent now?

Metaphysics is To Be Continued.
So it is just physics.

Sooo, you're saying all movie goers try to run away from the Slime but are paralyzed? — Artemis

Maybe. Maybe they want to run away, but just give up in the end. Maybe they don't want to run away, maybe they want to be eaten by the Slime. Maybe it's sloth and maybe it's suicide.

I wouldn't know, probably.

Goodbye and stay safe~

If you were entirely unaware of the simulation, you would run away from the Slime. — Artemis

the audience's corpus is instinctively restricted — Shamshir

You can be entirely unaware of the simulation, but be unable to run away. Sleep paralysis is an obvious example; lest it be authentic?

The screen doesn't embody fiction, but it is an attribute that may be correlated with fiction. A livestream should be sufficient proof.

Your sight operates on the same basis as a livestream, the only difference between the two is the additional stimuli.

You feel confident in your ability to distinguish real from fictional, but what if your reality is just a simulation you're obliviously immersed in? Being obliviously immersed in it, would make the simulation imperceptible.
Whether you're within a simulation you're unaware of is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the audience of a film may fall in to such an obliviously immersed state for the duration of the film, parallel to which, the audience's corpus is instinctively restricted; that's the belief. After all, as aforementioned, the authentic belief of film hinges on sight and sound, not touch - so there's not much ground for the body to be superficially active; though it may incur a spike in blood pressure, which means that it reacts to the fictional on par with the real deal in some aspects.

I find it a possibility to be thoroughly examined, rather than thoroughly denigrated.

What if you're aware of the screen, but unaware of the fiction - similar to beholding a shark behind the aquarium glass? Let's say that your belief of the authenticity of Jaws and your awareness of the screen overlap, and produce an experience that feels authentic, with the included benefit of granting you full immunity from harm; something akin to an indistinguishable simulation, that fuels you with godly confidence.

Are you denying this as a possibility? As I in practice, do not find the shark behind the aquarium glass to be that different from the shark behind the TV screen; regardless if it is Jaws, or actual footage.
Thus, I do not find the tiger behind its cage to be any more authentic than Jaws behind the screen, in terms of belief. But obviously the two may be distinguished, at the very least through smell; yet if you dismiss everything but sight and sound, they are on footing equal enough to interpret the fictional as fully authentic.

After all, optical illusions are what filmmakers specialise in.

What's different between the inauthentic meeting with the tiger behind the cage and the inauthentic meeting with Jaws behind the screen?

Why aren't you afraid of the tiger behind the cage, like you would likely be of the tiger in the jungle?
Consequently, why can't you fully believe in Jaws for the duration of the movie, but feel perfectly safe due to the screen between you two?
Where is the conflict?

Now apply that to the tiger in the zoo cage.

Perhaps the observer's belief includes the awareness of the barrier separating it from the threat, similar to how someone views tigers through a cage at the zoo?

In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. As such, let the instigators instigate. When they resort to violence, they break the law and should be dealt with as such. — Tzeentch

They will be dealt with, but will they be dealt with sufficiently or will it be too late to reprimand these instigators?
This is yet another slippery slope, where you allow the rotten tree to fall and smash your house, settling to deal with the aftermath. Perhaps it would be more prodigal to prevent injury, rather than to mend it?

People can have heated debate about anything. The fragile ego will find ways to express itself. If people were to desire freedom from contention, then perhaps everyone should lose their tongue at birth. No, in order for free speech to be worth anything, we must risk contention and offense, and deal with it like adults, instead of like children.

In the words of Descartes: "Whenever anybody has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it."

The safety of the people may be safeguarded by an effective police force and justice system. — Tzeentch

Perhaps, there is a necessary risk involved with freedom.
I doubt that dictates that inflammatory actions ought be acquitted.

That one has the freedom to kill, does not dictate that one should freely kill - does it?

The innability to coexist, will inevitably end in repercussions for all parties involved.
Dealing with it like adults, children, men or beasts is equally faulty - as it has nothing to do with either.
And the job of the justice system is to enforce coexistence, through means of fear and repercussions - that unfortunately add to the tension, rather than to relieve it - as the general realisation of 'why' is left out. It's a dam that is prone to break, as it does often enough. How long until the whole thing falls apart, I wonder?

You were quite right that people ought to be educated, but I retain the question, what in?
Merely enhancing their intellect, will enhance their observation - fueling the violent to violence and the kind to kindness; it lone, is not enough.

How? — Tzeentch

It is no longer about Freedom of Speech, but Freely Speaking.
It is anarchical, and anarchy is self-cannibalising.
Freedom gets tossed out for the contention of freedom; and so your ideal is snared.

I will rephrase my point;

If one's intellect propels one to violent action, one may not be as wise as they think they are. — Tzeentch

One's wisdom is irrelevant, to the degree of violence or kindness.
Knowing of violence may enhance one's actions, though not control them.
So it is not intellect that propels one to violent action, and likewise it will not be intellect that will subdue it. Something else is required to play; a binder.

Firstly, I do not like the comparison between physical and psychological pain. Physical pain is, for most, an involuntary response that physiologically bypasses the intellect. Offense is a voluntary response. — Tzeentch

They are the same. Pain felt here or there, is all generated in the mind.

Obliviousness to injury, voluntary or involuntary, will not produce pain.
Expectation of injury, voluntary or involuntary, will produce pain.

It is an act of awareness that may be maintaned, similar to the volume level of your phone's ringtone.
Pain does not bypass the intellect, though how it interacts with it is undecided.

As to your question; why allow people to rub proverbial salt?

Humanity is imperfect, and as such it is only expected that some will make sub-optimal use of their freedoms.

But the real question here is, how come someone perceives words as being so powerful as to be like salt upon wounds?

Again, whatever is being said can be true, in which case it should be accepted no matter how much it hurts and one should be grateful instead of offended. — Tzeentch

How would one make sub-optimal use of one's freedom if one is truly free?
Do you see freedom as an allowance to be exchanged?

Perhaps some words are perceived as powerful, for they truly are powerful?
Perhaps they work similar to a poison, that attacks something other than the flesh - so it is harder for the injuries to be detected and thus taken consideration of, for they are not so obvious?
Maybe it is the frail ego that they lacerate, but would that not entail that it is the frail ego that lacerates its opposing ego?

I do agree, that one ought be grateful for the truth, though it may be painful.
But would it not be more beneficial to express the truth in a less brutish manner, that does not involve nailing down the message?
Is it not more so what you do with it, rather than what it is? In which case the offender would be just as guilty as the offended; indeed, both fail.

If it is false or opinion, then what is there to be offended about? The disposition of the other? If one thinks the offender is so totally wrong in their beliefs, wouldn't pity be a much more appropriate emotion rather than indignation? Seek to make him see the error of his ways rather than silence him.

If some offender is being purposefully hurtful, why put any value in his words? Much like with a high-school bully, ask oneself how his situation came to be, and soon enough one will find pity or compassion more suitable emotions than anger and indignation.

Finally, when one feels offended, it should cause a moment of self-reflection, because apparently one is not as confident about their beliefs as they tell themselves they are. Wouldn't one's response be otherwise to laugh? When someone tells me the earth is flat, I do not get offended, for I know it to be wrong. So why do I get offended now? — Tzeentch

Perhaps one gets offended at the false, as the wilfully false confuses the one?
If the one craves truth, and the falsely speaking comes to stomp around, the one may feel offended in the same way as if someone came to stomp down your garden; for the wilfully false trades in misfortune.
Pity if directed by the one, will be at most to the one.

Would compassion or pity be more suitable emotions? Perhaps.
Yet they are not void of indignation - for they mingle with indignation, with the intent of washing it away.

Is one offended merely because one is not confident enough? I don't know.
But I doubt the appropriate response would be to otherwise laugh; that feels equally as unconfident.

Have you ever contemplated the phrase 'Rest in Peace'?

Not really. I'm only pointing out that most of the time we operate mechanically - indulging our unchosen inclinations. — TheMadFool

And that is the gamble.

Without free will, you couldn't take those odds - as there would be no for or against free will; it would be quite homogeneous.

Perhaps the machine may be set on its predetermined path, as extension of some free willed operator?
And likewise, through this extension, the machine may indulge in the free will of its operator?
There is a leader in front of the follower, no?

The problem is, as is being demonstrated by contemporary politics, "violence" can be interpreted in many ways. Such ambiguity should never be brought into contact with fundamental human rights, because it will inevitably be used to undermine them. — Tzeentch

But advocation of violence and rallies to violence are not ambiguous in their intent, are they?

So with safety being an inherent right of all living things, that they try so desperately to preserve, is it to be traded for the luxury of abrasive contention that is more aligned with as you put it - the 'insecure ego', rather than freedom from contention altogether?

I find the idea of abrasive speech constituting freedom of speech, quite misaligned, as it actually inhibits freedom of speech - which so many appear to fawn over.

That one may have the right and ability to freely speak, does not mean one should.

True intellect never degenerates into violence.
A statement can be true, in which case an intellectual should be the first to accept it as such.
It can be false, in which case the intellectual may try to show the person the error of his ways. If he fails, he may pity the fool for his ignorance.
If it is an opinion it is no better or worse than blind faith, and an intellectual should put little value in it to begin with. — Tzeentch

True intellect is not free from violence, if true intellect constitutes merely knowing things.
As Tzeentch you should know this.

Yet if true intellect contains the more subtle things that allot for the likes of 'freedom', then maybe it is something more than merely true intellect?

Though it be true that harming a person will bring them pain, there is nothing in the intellect that prohibits this. No, this is merely an observation.

Nothing happens when someone insults you. It's one's own insecure ego that hurts, not another's words. After all, if the man has a point one should be grateful for the information. If it is false, one should carry on with their business and pay no mind. If it is opinion, well what is opinion but blind faith? — Tzeentch

Perhaps it is one's own insecure ego that hurts, like an open wound being smothered with salt - in this case, words.

If that wound was not there in the first place, the salt would not hurt. Yet is it fair to rub the salt in? Should it be done, just because it may be done?

What about bandaging it up? Perhaps there are other words that could be used to that effect?
In which case, why use the hurtful ones, over the mending ones?

Though what may be said, may be true - a violent demonstration will only feed feed the insecure ego.
Neither party will gain from this, both will lessen.

Moreover, before we start sacrificing something as fundamental as free speech, shouldn't we first aim to educate people? There is something profoundly pitiful about an adult who is hurt by a stranger's words. — Tzeentch

How much of free speech is being sacrificed with the removal of violent speech, as opposed to its preservation? Would you weigh the attrition of each for me?

As for aiming to educate folk, that is indeed a step forward - but what would you educate them in?
Perhaps merely empowering the intellect would add to the tension?

And may I ask, also, what and why is it pitiful that an adult may be hurt by a stranger's words?
How different do you see it as opposed to an adult being spat in their face by a stranger?

Anything that causes violence is an advocate of violence.
It is not a difficult idea to grasp.

So, we have no free will and if we do it is subdued by our unchosen inclinations. In essence we're not free. — TheMadFool

Gambling away your free will, will do you no good - even if you're determined to do so.

That's its purpose, dear. First the spark, then the inferno.
Wait your turn, please.

Advocation of violence is itself violence.

No, dear.
It's not romantic spurning to be prohibited, but the advocation of violence as a fair mean to settle an issue.

The problem is not with the speech or the spurning, but the violence they advocate.

Even if 'hate speech' (whatever that may be, really..) would cause an increase in violence, freedom of speech should be universal and never be impeded upon. — Tzeentch

What if the speech sparks violence, and consequently violence sparks genocide, and consequently genocide sparks the annihilation of the human race?

What is the reason to allow for this possibility, rather than bar it?
It is a parasite - and like any parasite has the right to live, but would you pardon its hindrance to other life?

More specifically, where are the 'old-fashioned atheists' nowadays who can provide me with the intellectual tools to reinforce my atheistic beliefs? — Purple Pond

There is an old-fashioned atheist that once rebelled, and was cast out and unto the Earth. Perhaps he may advise you?

Though I wonder what would ensue if you took out the theism from atheism?
Anarchy? Apathy? What do you think?

The difference is as simple as the hands of a clock. The mouth determines where the head and tail of the Ouroboros lay.

It's all in the angle, dear observer.

Scientific enterprise is far older than the Greeks, who acquired their knowledge from the local Thracians.

Depending on how far back you're willing to go, it may as well have started half a million years ago.

How would you respond to someone who would claim they know innately that the world is not mind-independent? — leo

Anyone who'd know that innately, would know what I know innately and would validate my claim.
I wouldn't need to respond.

Are you saying the mind can choose to not follow laws? — leo

It can transmute laws, and by that process not follow them.

You see objective reality as arising from free will? But then if that reality was willed it does not exist independently of us, it is not objective, which is why I don't see how they are not exclusive. — leo

Free will persists thanks to an objective reality and objective reality persists thanks to freedom.
If it's subjective, it can't be truly free - as it's always an aspect.

So, an objective reality exists independently of the mind.
It's existence permits and persists the capacity for free will.
Free will in turn allows a mind to draw upon the objective reality and persist the objective reality.
If freedom ceases, there's no room for objectivity and so it too ceases.

It would actually be harder, nigh impossible, to influence a subjective reality.
An objective reality is not only easily influenced, it is influenced by what are independent parts of it.
It's hard for Chess to influence itself; it's easy for chess pieces and chess players, who are independent to Chess, to influence Chess. Same with a mind-independent objective reality.

Then how did you arrive at this conclusion? — leo

Innately. All my life I haven't learned a thing, at most I've just remembered things.

By mind-independent world I mean a world that exists even if there are no minds in it, in which everything behaves according to laws including the minds. If we assume that in a mind-independent world minds follow such laws, then minds have an influence on the world in the sense that they are a part of the world that follows laws that act upon other parts of the world, but they don't have an influence on the world in the sense that they can't act outside of these laws.

So the fundamental question is, can we do things that doesn't follow these laws or not? I'm saying that if we are assuming we are part of an objective reality (which implicitly assumes that everything behaves according to unchanging laws, even if these laws include some randomness, and we're just observing parts of it), then it immediately follows that we are assuming we can't do anything outside of these laws, we can't even act on the randomness in these laws, we don't have free will. — leo

Well, regardless if these minds are free or not - they can't act outside of these laws.
Which is to say, regardless if they are independent of something, they will follow its laws when interacting with it - if they don't, the laws change and the object transmutes.

To summarise: There is flux and flux allows you to not follow laws. Flux is objective and so a law. Hence the mind is ambivalent. Hence you have free will - and your free will has borders.

I don't see how we could assume objective reality and free will at the same time. — leo

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive - I see one arising from the other.

All I'm saying is, Eisenhower outlined the motives for the current problems - be they warmongering or faulty science.

Ever seen Eisenhower's parting speech?

It clearly is, emphasis on clearly. The mind is a prism.

It clearly is, but your perception of it is not mind independent - hence the first question.

Precisely because that world would not depend on you? — leo

You don't depend on me and I can freely act upon you; same with the world.

Isn't it obvious?

It's both. The difference lies with 'to'.

And I told you, it's because it's an indirect experience.
Now, how you deal with that is your own issue - I just provided the distinction.

I'll give you my own little explanation and you take it from there.

Being is first-hand, whereas what is perceived is second-hand.
Your experience relies on what is perceived, hence it is second-hand and illusory.

Is your experience real? Sure.
Is the illusion of colour based on colour? Sure.
But it's indirect knowledge; all illusion means is 'distorted image', with reflections on glassy surfaces being the prime example.

To state the matter I wish to debate clearly:
Given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in ancient Greek philosophy, and given the influence this philosophy may have had on early Christianity, how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

Let's draw an analogy of Logos as 'the Word' through a paintbrush.
In the beginning God must be the brush, then after creation - the brush may separate itself.
The Christ spirit becomes this separate mediator, this brush, which ministers to creation - which is partly creator.

No has the flavour of sauerkraut, Good Boy has the flavour of fillet mignon.

But in practice "broadening your view" tends to involve completely throwing out everything that was believed before. — TogetherTurtle

Sure, in a way. It's not completely throwing it away, but of course going up a step requires that you remove yourself from the current step.

I don't think its 100% safe to say we know how plants work until we know at least think we know about everything else too. — TogetherTurtle

I get what you're saying - that you'd need to know all the relative factors, to understand the object.
Something akin to puzzle pieces and where they fit?

But you don't really need to know everything else, all that does is add more depth and hence more parts.
You can always know the plant and how it works, with less than all parts - merely enough parts.

But what if the cakes you don't know about give you a completely new perspective? — TogetherTurtle

Sure they will. Comparing a sweet cake to a salty cake, will give insights in to cake creation.
But it won't really influence a Garash recipe, will it? Merely give you a renewed appreciation, for what was already obvious.

Don't get me wrong, what we know about cakes and how we think they work is probably good enough to make them now, but I don't think it's safe to say we know everything about cakes, not until we know every cake and everything related to them. — TogetherTurtle

That has more to do with cuisine than cakes, though.

The "object" would be "the experience of a color," right? — Terrapin Station

Object would be colour. Illusion would be the mock-up of colour.

You may have misunderstood my intention. Studying the plant for sure gives you understanding of nature, but it's impossible to confirm that the plant works the way you think it does without knowing everything else (or at least having some kind of theory to compare it to). — TogetherTurtle

I don't think that is necessarily so.
You can always confirm that the plant works the way you think it does, and broaden your view thereafter.
It's a step by step process, and with the lower steps acting as a base for the higher ones - they can't be negated.

To clarify my point a bit more, sure you would be learning of the cake, but how do you know its ingredients until you have studied every other cake and all of the ingredients you believe to be in those cakes? — TogetherTurtle

Well, you don't need to study every other cake - merely enough similar cakes.
You derive matches from comparison, and study the ingredients that match.
Soon enough you should be figuring out the cake in question.

I wish that were true. I'm just talking on a forum concerning philosophy. Outside of this environment, I feed no fires. I hardly ever leave my little wooded site, other than to get food. I stay out of others' way. I feel so drained though. I'll get by, I always manage to. — THX1138

It is true. You feed the fire, but the fire isn't external from you, to search for it in a forum or other people. It's in you, right in the middle of your mindset.
I told you, stop paying your problems so much attention - that's not going to make them go away faster.
Do something good for yourself instead of maintaining a self-deprecating stagnation.

I just want to feel something good every now and then. — THX1138

Then do that. Don't just want it, do it.

As far as my anti-social personality, what's to be expected from the kind of life experiences I've gone through? I'm tapped out, constant degradation and put downs have taken their toll on me. I just don't have it in me to trust many people with more than my groceries or a bit of anonymous advice. — THX1138

The problem doesn't lie with what happens to you, but what you do with it. — Shamshir

What's to be expected when my friend, lost his legs and acquired lung cancer?
Well, he decided he was going to climb up Everest without an oxygen bottle, and he did.

What about Vinny Paz who broke his neck? Did he stop boxing?

The final call lies with you - you can either make it or break it.