Comments

  • Cannibalism
    Polynesian tribes, old Mesoamericans and old Celts all practiced ritual cannibalism.

    Is it right or wrong? Neither.
    Ritual cannibalism allows for the deceased to permeate through the living vessel and enhance it.
    But desecrating a corpse to fill your gut is shameful to both the consumer and the consumed.
  • Virginia Beach Shooting-When will America stop?
    Why are you acting like this is an American problem when it's clearly global?
  • The "thing" about Political Correctness
    What even is political correctness?
    Is it an arbitrary mechanism for selective interfacing, akin to military programs?
    Is it the base of discussion, which like in architecture, determines the outcome of the whole structure of discussion?
    Is it just the new buzzword to peddle the old under the guise of the new, like with 'bio' and 'organic?

    What is it?
  • You've got to be kidding me... right?
    ↪BrianW
    It's the oldest trick in the book, as the saying goes. You make the audience watch one hand and con them with the other.

    There's a folktale called 'Sick carries the healthy' about a crippled wolf who lugs a sly fox on his back. Things haven't changed.
  • You've got to be kidding me... right?
    Why aren't we extracting more fresh water from the oceans or from beneath the earth's surface? — BrianW
    Because it's not part of the script.
  • We're conscious beings. Why?
    Are you saying all behaviors are instinctual, and that free will is an illusion and really just another instinctual response to our perceptions? — Harry Hindu
    Free will is not an illusion, but its freedom is limited.
    A chess piece can only move within the confines of the chessboard, and free will whilst free, is confined by the absolute possible.

    Does free will govern behaviour? In part.
    Free will is pushing the ball off the top of the hill, then it gets lost for a bit in the inertia of being.
    At some point the ball stops, and then free will is in control again.
  • Pantheism
    When I mentioned about whether god is always good; I mean if we must have the capacity to do evil in order be free entities then why doesn't this apply to an omnipotent god as well. — Michael McMahon
    Due to parts being capable of err, which is to say not fit.
    Whereas an absolute divinity, is unable to err, as it has nowhere to fit.
  • We're conscious beings. Why?
    I don't understand 'expressive ego'. — bert1
    Let's compare the ego to water.
    Water by itself is formless, so it is without context, lacking an expression.
    It expresses itself in the forms it takes: oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc.

    • An integral part of the human modus operandi is the ego.
    • The ego expresses itself through desires.
    • Desire makes it jitter, and form expressions; this is the base of the arts.
    • Rocks don't really crave anything, so they don't jitter and aren't expressive.

    OK, I think I might know what you mean. Consciousness is necessary for expression or behaviour, but expression/behaviour is not necessary for consciousness. Is that the idea? — bert1
    That's the idea.
    Thinking something doesn't mean you'll speak it.
    Speaking it, means you think it.

    Maybe. I favour a version of panpsychism in which all behaviour is caused by will, although much behaviour is a mechanical emergent of many wills interacting. Indeed the behaviour of a rock would be such a mechanical emergent I think, so the whole-rock-consciousness may indeed be as you say, I'm not sure. — bert1
    Everything wills, but not everything is willed.

    It may sound confusing, but it is as simple as going with the flow.
    In part, some things are strongly willed and steered.
    But on the whole, things go with the flow - willingly, but not willed.

    Think of many wills interacting as creating a swirling current, which simply drags those wills around.
    This motion is inertial and doesn't need to be willed or maintained; that's the essence of a dream.
    So when I say that the conscious rock and the dreaming man are the same, you may think of it as 'experiencing' the world, rather than 'molding' the world, which is what the ego attempts.
  • Reading the mind of God
    Signs of intelligence include communication, society, technology, none of which plants demonstrate. — Devans99
    Those aren't signs of intelligence. Those are human character traits.
    A calculator doesn't communicate, socialize or create anything - nonetheless it is intelligent.

    But let's look over your claim.
    Communication? Seasonal foreknowledge.
    Society? Forests and lawns.
    Technology? Mutation and adaptability.

    I think it is actually hard to segregate the animals; even seemingly simple animals like ants are self aware (they pass the mirror test) so I think we have to show respect for all animals small and high. — Devans99
    :up:

    In an ideal world, humans would be capable of photosynthesis; we could take our energy from the sun directly. Maybe our skin can be genetically reengineered to be solar panels? — Devans99
    You don't need an ideal world. Sungazing shows that people possess a latent form of photosynthesis.
  • Reading the mind of God
    I said the higher animals have a similar intelligence to man. Plants only have a very limited form of intelligence. — Devans99
    And I said plants have a similar intelligence to man, as all intelligent lifeforms do, despite a difference in faculties.

    If you want to go off on a tangent about intellectual superiority, I could argue plants are more intelligent than humans, being hermaphroditic and capable of photosynthesis; making them highly self-sustainable.
    Which would incline towards the notion that man's intelligence is limited - despite it's purported wide area of operation.

    But I've a question for you.
    How do you segregate animals in to higher and lower ranks, when there's plenty of humans that mismatch human intelligence, but are deemed humans nonetheless?
  • My "nihilism"
    ↪yupamiralda
    Criticism and insults won't free you; merely chain you up somewhere else.
    All things wax and wane, and in time you'll shed this notion off when it becomes burdensome.

    As it is, you're already shedding - having given yourself, your thinking and your offspring, some meaning.
    If things were truly meaningless to you, you would not care for either of these, let alone write about them.

    An absolutely meaningless world, is an absolutely meaningful world.
    Being nothing in particular, it can be and so it is - everything.
    Absurd ideas may become common and common ideas may become absurd.
    Don't dwell on the steps, just dance the dance.
  • Is experience in the context of mysticism a valid form of knowledge and why?
    ↪Nasir Shuja
    Experience in the context of anything is valid knowledge.
    That's the thing off of which claims are based.
    If you have no experience, you have nothing to base claims off of.

    • Scientific experiments produce experience.
    • Mystical events produce experience.
    • The experience of the former is not different from the experience of the latter.
    • The proposed difference between the two is artificial segregation, which hinges on feelings of either.
  • Existence is relative, not absolute.
    ↪fresco

    Doubtful. The relativity of existence itself depends on the absoluteness of existence.
    Without an absolute, you can't have relative proportions.
    Relativity deals with each bread slice, but you can't have bread slices without bread - and that's the realm of the absolute.

    'Existence' is a human concept, and like all concepts requires context in which it is meaningful. — fresco
    That's not so. Now, there are human concepts of existence, but they deal with the understanding of existence.
    Existence itself is not a human concept and does not require anything save for itself; whereas everything else does require it.
  • We're conscious beings. Why?
    What is the relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks, such that you attribute consciousness to the former but not the latter? — bert1
    The relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks is the expressive ego; something that is presumed as the base of sentience. It's not.

    Consciousness doesn't denote expression.
    Just like how the body is constantly conscious, even during deep sleep, but isn't expressive without commands from the ego.

    The consciousness of rocks is no different from the consciousness of the dreaming man; aware but non-controlling.
  • Reading the mind of God
    My belief is that man, the higher animals, any future AI, aliens and God all share a basically similar kind of intelligence. — Devans99
    All creatures share a similar kind of intelligence; that would be intelligence.
    Man and a cornstalk? Similar kind of intelligence.

    Discrepancies are borne upon further deconstruction.
  • How to become a good philosopher
    A pair of dice and a flick of the wrist.
  • Why Clean Energy Is Good For Business, Family And God
    One claim that I've heard from opponents of clean energy is that oil is progress and that clean energy is stagnation. This claim is a Big Lie. — Ilya B Shambat
    Obviously, and no one truly thinks otherwise.

    If you had people choose between a car that runs on oil, and a car that runs on anti-gravity, the few who choose to run their car on oil would only choose oil, because they enjoy the smell or something similar; not due to efficiency.

    Clean energy is wholly better, unless you enjoy soot and pungent smells; and some do.
    Such is the planet of the apes.

    It appears that any and all energy, given human folly, will eventually become unclean dangerous. — TheMadFool
    Radiation isn't unclean - it's powerful and warrants great responsibility; for instance. :ok:
  • Truth and consequences
    Rather, I wonder if there is any agreement that honesty in public life should be enforceable in principle in somewhat the same way that it is in business? — unenlightened
    Here's a question, is enforced honesty - pure honesty?
    Before you answer, consider the following: is enforced freedom - pure freedom?

    If my new gizmo doesn't do what it says on the tin, I am entitled to my money back; — unenlightened
    Not really. If you get scammed, you don't deserve a reprisal; but it's common practice - partly due to goodwill, partly due to sales tactics.
  • Essay Writing Fun
    something akin to Orwell’s take on the perfect cup if tea too if the mood takes me — I like sushi
    How about The Wizard of Oz?
  • What does 'typical' mean?
    distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing — guitarist41
    I thought 'typical' just meant having the most usual qualities — guitarist41
    Well the most usual/common qualities of something are its distinctive qualities, that every variation has.

    Like how a distinctive feature of a bicycle is having two wheels - that's typical of a bicycle.
  • A summary of today
    ↪lucafrei
    Everyday.
  • Does God(s) exist without religion? How is this possible spiritually?
    the God of any particular religion did not exist as far as any human knows until the onset of their respective religion, and even now no one knows if any of said God(s) exists — Maureen
    That's not true. Each religion is a consequence of many close encounters, which have been described in said religions.
  • We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then...
    Could be.

    If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.

    If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."

    Just my opinion.     — Frank Apisa
    Or we can just stick to beliefs.

    As what even is a belief? A thought you are confident in.
    The thought that you don't believe, is ironically a belief.
    All our knowledge, guesses, experience - are also beliefs of sorts.

    And I don't see why you attest that beliefs are blind guesses and leave yourself so distraught over it.
    Because when you say "I DO NOT DO BELIEVING", all you're saying is "GUESSES AREN'T ENOUGH FOR ME"; which is fine.

    @BrianW Pardon the derailing, buddy.
  • We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then...
    Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses. — Frank Apisa
    Or they're just acceptance of experience.

    So, what do you think? — BrianW
    I think that the issue arises from an unnecessary segregation of things in to the categories of 'scientific' and 'magical'. A segregation that exploits the herd instinct.

    As Arthur Clarke points out, such a segregation is based on misunderstanding.
  • Does God(s) exist without religion? How is this possible spiritually?
    Does God exist without religion?
    Well, do you exist if someone has never heard of you?

    If it's possible anyway, it's possible spiritually.
  • Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?
    ↪S
    Answering questions is a fun exercise, and I'm not scared of making a fool of myself, because we're all fools. :ok:
  • On Reason and Teleology
    if it involves the will — TheGreatArcanum
    Does it have to? Maybe, maybe not.
    What wills the will? Itself? How does it do that? Does it... just do that - on account of nothing?

    to prove to yourself that you can will without reason — TheGreatArcanum
    Can't you?
    Why does gravity suck us in and not throw us out? No reason, it just does.
    Why are we having this, in actuality, pointless conversation? Why not? We can, and we do.

    You're saying that the initiated event's purpose lies in itself; sure, in essence it does.
    But why is there an event to begin with? Why, why, why, why...? Why not?
    There just is, without anything in mind, no purpose or reason to cause it to happen, or maintain, or end.

    You're putting rationale in the whirlpool of ideas, and it's going to sink.
  • On Reason and Teleology
    making noises for the purpose of making noises — TheGreatArcanum
    Is just making noises.

    Although one may say the purpose of an act is the act, thus it has a purpose; it's equally valid, by the same logic, that the act happening for its own sake, just happened, with no purpose in mind - not even itself. It just happened, for no reason!

    Why? Why not?
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    You basically just called me British. I demand an apology too. — Baden
    :clap:
  • On Reason and Teleology
    making noises for the purpose of making noise — TheGreatArcanum
    Which is equal to having no purpose.

    proving to someone that you don’t need a reason for doing someone which is in itself a reason — TheGreatArcanum
    Is it? Or is it just babble? Am I trying to accomplish something, or just mindlessly chattering away whatever comes to mind, because why not? Maybe both!
  • On Reason and Teleology
    one can’t speak without having a reason for speaking, nor speak on behalf of a particular position without doing so. — TheGreatArcanum
    Sure one can. It's called making noise, innit?
  • Essay Writing Fun
    ↪I like sushi

    Would you do an essay on Sushi?
  • On Reason and Teleology
    And anyone who asserts that there is no reason or cause for the existence of things either has no cause or reason for asserting this, or he has. In the first case, his assertion is no truer than its converse; — TheGreatArcanum
    I have a question.

    Isn't the one who doesn't have cause or reason for his assertion, his assertion being that there isn't cause or reason for things, proving his assertion by example?
  • Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?
    So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin: — Shamshir
    I don't answer loaded questions — S
    There we go. :clap:
  • Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?
    ↪S
    Yeah, it is ironic that you confirmed my claim, rather than answering straightforward, even if the answer is 'I don't know', for which no one would criticise you, boy who cried loaded question.
  • Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?
    Was there not even a hint in your mind that you were asking a stupid question, given its vague and loaded nature? — S
    So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin:
  • How election politics is flawed
    This time frame is too short for any policy by a new government to have an effect — TheMadFool
    But that's people dependent, not government dependent.
  • We're conscious beings. Why?
    Apart from suicide, we have no choice in the matter. — Unseen
    But that choice isn't active until you're alive.
    Why are you alive to begin with?

    Anyway, explain how your question relates to answering mine. I'm drawing a blank. — Unseen
    It's simple.
    The existence of a thing necessitates its existence. Every other reason, is a confabulated relation to another thing.
  • We're conscious beings. Why?
    I can't think of any reason why we need to be having experiences. Can you? — Unseen
    Let me ask you something, do we need anything? Do we even need to live?
  • Rebirth?
    beyond the practice/scope/ability of science at all. — NKBJ
    I figured he meant beyond the scope of conventional science, considering he presented a scientific study himself.

    was mainly simply ignored by mainstream science — Wayfarer

    Is my interpretation incorrect @Wayfarer?
Home » Shamshir