I'm in good company then; I hope you feel the same way! — Agent Smith

We can hope but probably never know!

Has anyone here experienced a lucid dream? — Shawn

Yeah, I wish more often.
Most of the time it happens when I am woken up in the morning for some reason, am up for a while, and go back to bed.

Getting back to the question as to what lucidity is, there are obviously several semi-independent dimensions to the concept, e.g volition, control, vividness and recall, all of which present to some extent in ordinary dreams, and which come at the cost of other dream qualities e.g 'surprisingness' and 'subjectedness' ; isn't it better to ditch the general concept of lucidity for these separate concepts? — sime

For me lucid dreaming means being aware that I am dreaming while I am dreaming, regardless of how vivid or in control of the dream I am.
Those seem like 3 useful factors: Degree of awareness that are dreaming, vividness, and degree of control.

I've had times where I almost became lucid, suspecting I was in a dream. Maybe this can be called semi-lucidity.
One time when I suspected I was dreaming something philosophically interesting happened. I found an authentication of reality code in my dream, which I was convinced was proof that my dream was the real world!

One dream I have that reoccurs is of a Tsunamis. Indicating, symbolizing a present fear of things to come — Josh Alfred

I used to have recurring tsunami dreams too!

Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes.

Thanks for QM explanations. I'm inspired to watch some YT videos on the subject. Confusing stuff!

Is it not a fact that Paris is spelled (in English) P.a.r.i.s?
And then isn't it a fact because English speakers by and large agree how to spell it?

If everyone started to spell Paris P.a.r.e.s then that would be the new spelling, while P.a.r.i.s would be considered an archaic spelling.

If Idealism is true, something like the distance of the sun from the Earth would be a fact about our shared subjective reality. That subjective reality is still as it is, even if I have a thought which doesn't correspond with it.

If everything is thought forms (another way of saying subjective) then objective facts are facts about objectified thought forms.

But objective facts are not ultimate truths.

Coherence and correspondance "theories of truth" can be applied within a subjective framework.

For example, language is a thought up system of symbols. It doesn't rely on objective rules, but on agrees upon "subjective" or mads up rules, if you will. (At least the grammar rules)

When two or more people agree on made up rules, they become sort of objectified in a sense. Even though the subjects are free to abandon the rules if they want. Its just they don't agree on a shared system they will have a hard time communicating.

The axioms of thought can also apply.
For example, even if there is only my mind...I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time.

I can imagine up all kinds of worlds, but those worlds will be grounded in some sense in the axioms of thought, at least, in addition to other rules I could imagine up.

Does that make any sense?

Well, you could stop spreading disinformation — Olivier5

I asked for a feasible plan to stop global warming. Of course I will spread better information if I have it.

I don't know. There is so much information, its hard to make heads or tails of things. How are any of us supposed to stop global warming, if even the UN (with who knows how much money, connections, and media access) can't get anything done?
Am I a defeatist to think trying to stop global warming, at least as average working class folk, is a pipe dream?
I feel like you guys that want to do something are just reacting emotionally. "Global warming!!"
Offer a feasible plan. Not just "Cut back on this or that". A plan that involves actually getting big corporations to comply. Something that has worked in history where average folk made difference like Ghandi's non-violent resistance.

I don't see where they asked if the people are ok with the agenda. Rather, they just surveyed which goals in the agenda the people are most concerned about. This is implied consent.

I get a sense they plan to radically alter life as we know it. After all, that's the only way to tackle global warming, or at least that is what they want us to believe.

See, "The Great Reset initiative"
And 8 predictions by WEF https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=10153920524981479 , includes "You'll own nothing and be happy"

Again I ask, who benefits from global warming alarmism. The answer is the UN and the WEF

Problem, Reaction, Solution.

Cognitive dissonance is so high, that even while the Agenda is plainly stated publically, most people will still deny there is a collusion of power with the intention of changing the world without our explicit consent.

The biggest threat to what exactly?

Not sure who you call the globalists. It seems to me that naïve, enthusiastic globalisation was killed by COVID. — Olivier5

I have to do more research on it.

On another note, the UN's Sustainability Development Agenda I assume includes handling human generated global warming. But I worry their smart cities will be hell cities. And did we the people get a say in whether or not we want to be part of this agenda?

Yes, it is. A less rhetorical question would be: cui bono from climate change denial? — Olivier5

Not the globalists, which are the bigger threat.

I should have said directly linked to the brain I guess.

Videogame machines/programs are tools we use to create simulations. Usually we create these simulations consciously and for fun, knowing its a sort of sub-reality.
We can talk about the rules (laws of nature) of video game worlds, but we don't mistake the nature of the videogame world for the nature of reality on the whole.

Likewise the laws of the world we imagine ourselves to be in now aren't necessarily the laws of reality on the whole.
We may be in a sub-reality.

Denying global warming should be treated with complete and unconditional disdain. Freedom of speech does not preclude the public shaming and ostracizing of those who abuse it. — _db

Sharing a wrong opinion is an abuse of free speech?
If anything, abusive speech is an abuse of free speech.

Yohan Cui bono from the truth? — Olivier5

Is that a rhetorical question?

Cui bono from climate change alarmism?

Even in the Star Trek universe they are not living in a utopia despite being able to explore space comfortably, materialise food and experience whatever they want via holodeck. Hedonic adaptation may be an inviolable principle.

I think techno-utopia is the scientism version of religious people's heaven. Only more absurd.
Every ism may have its future fantasy. The idea is to fantasize about some future collectivist ideal rather than bear the weight of individual responsibility for your own life here and now.

The topic here, as I understand, is that we are literally living in a computer simulation. — Manuel

Simulations are only mind generated. You can't "literally" live in a simulation. When you play a video game the mind projects 3dimensional depth onto the screen. It would be the same if a computer were directed linked to the mind.

Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane--like all dreams

Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

I think human consciousness is enough.

don't know.

Please report anything that you might find intersting/suprising. — Agent Smith

delete

Anti-humor is really quite interesting.
Surprise is arguably the most essential factor in humor.
With anti-humor you expect a surprising answer, and instead receive an unsurprising answer. And that itself is suprising.

The topic here, as I understand, is that we are literally living in a computer simulation. — Manuel

OK

Do you disagree that empirical science suggests all your experiences, ideas...whatever makes up you and your world view is in and created by the brain?

Isn't the only question whether or not the brain has sort of created a copy of an actual world?

The idealist takes it to the logical end. If everything we know can be reduced to brain states, then even the brain can be reduced to a brain state. That leads to infinite regress.
On the other hand, if the brain is an outward representation of consciousness, then the brain is reducible to consciousness. No infinite regress.

Here is an ironic take on the subject:
“The greater part of the world's troubles are due to questions of grammar.”
― Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays

On a similar note, Mark Twain said "You may die of a misprint."

And there is an old saying "The devil's in the details"

Also AI:
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/K35MwKhmY64 (I doubt this story is true, but Musk may be right)

Trust is won not given. ~ Tobsha Learner

The only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him. ~ Henry Lewis Stimson

I trust everyone. I just don’t trust the devil inside them. ~ Troy Kennedy-Martin

Believe in Allah, but tie your camel. ~ Arabian proverb

:eyes:

I think I pointed this out before, eudaimonia (live well) is priority #1, everything else is secondary. — Agent Smith

Eudaimonia sounds impractical. Who actually has achieved it?

I will vote: aging.

By far the greatest number of deaths has been because of aging, not to mention the suffering of losing one's mind, sense and abilities...and knowing everyone we love will also go through that.

I might be half joking.

Be clearly, lucidly written; no conflicting interpretations, no confusion as to what is intended
Have no internal contradictions
Have no contradictions to genuine scientific knowledge — Art48

If god were a machine maybe he could provide some exact mechanistic explanation of himself.
If god is Being, on the other hand, then I think when he allegedly said "I Am That I Am", that that was a sufficiently simple and clear explanation.
The Hindus boiled it down to one sound/syllable: Om

There is a saying: A word to the wise is sufficient.

You asked "What makes the good life good?"
You then said in your post:
"a good life will be a highly-meaningful life."
So is not your answer that it is richness of meaning which makes a good life good?

Sounds true enough to me.

Big plans rarely succeed. The more complicated a method is, the more things can go wrong.

We may do better to start at the ground up, with simple common sense principles, than top down with theoretical models.

with a fair share of luck, things usually fall into place just the way you want it to. — Agent Smith

We will all make mistakes, that's how we learn.

But what could be more risky than giving a small group of people the power to govern the masses?

The idea of government seems a lot more like a "noble vision" than the idea of letting humanity self-organise.

Shrug

I don't want anyone to govern me
— Yohan

It looks like you're forgettin' the part where a government does its thing for your benefit. No single individual is powerful enough to defend himself, his interests i.e. we need help (from the government). — Agent Smith

Would you not help your family, friends, or community voluntarily?
Government keeps people divided.
If the people were united, we could protect each other.

If I find any, I'll pass 'em on.

Seems like common sense though that self government is the only legitimate form of government.

I don't want anyone to govern me, therefore I ought not to govern others?

Has governing others ever been a success?

There must be, there's got to be, a simple yet effective, as in beneficial to all, way to govern. — Agent Smith

Its called self-government.

Worldviews tend to give rise to narratives. I would call it "the mechanistic narrative".

There is a difference between collecting natural data, like going out and measuring a tree. This seems true to the etymology of 'science' as knowledge, and doesn't seem so philosophical.

But when science tries to understand the fundamental laws of nature, and to achieve a theory of everything, this sounds a lot like philosophy...so much so that I can't tell the difference.

A "law" is an abstraction, or is it something that can be directly observed? It doesn't seem to be physical. I don't see why a law wouldn't be considered metaphysical, but maybe that's an appeal to etymology.

Shrug

Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work? — Alkis Piskas

At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work.
But there is a difference between using a framework and critically examining the framework or coming up with frameworks.
Many scientists take the epistemological framework methodological naturalism rests on for granted. This can be dangerous, as they may not know the limits of the framework, and think its the "one true effective epistemology", or that everything is reducible to matter.
This can happen with mathematicians too, that are so used to observing the mathematical side of things, that they think everything can be reduced to math equation.
This is as silly as reducing music to sheet music. Or a book to grammar.

On the other hand, we can talk --and this is quite interesting and promising-- about how science can and is already used in philosophy. (Not the other way around.) — Alkis Piskas

This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer.
Scientism is the confused belief that a hammer doesn't require a hand.

The methodologies themselves can be verified by the successes — jorndoe

Science involves two major things:
Prediction and verification.
Both are part of the "scientific method".

Essentially, saying "science works" is saying:
1. Empirical observation is a reliable way to verify a prediction.
+
2. Prediction + verification leads to higher accuracy of prediction.

If 1 is right, then 2 is easy to verify: Just compare an equal number of new not yet verified predictions VS old previously verified predictions.

But how do we verify 1?
And is it
1. A philosophical claim/principle
Or
2. A scientific claim/principle.


If 2, then it means, "I predict that empirical observation will verify a prediction". But then how can I verify if an empirical observation verifies a prediction? Infinite regress.

Therefore, "Empirical observation is a reliable way to verify a prediction."
Is a philosophical claim or principle.

Racial prejudice is what racism means.
Then there is scale:
Light prejudice against a race VS hatred and intolerance. (And everything in between)
Policy/oppression is another thing.

Hitler's racism didn't begin with his enactment of oppressing policies. Rather, the policies(and their consequence) were the end result.

Science works. — jorndoe

.
The scientific method can be used to create useful technologies.
Is that what you mean?

I would say, "Imagination works".
My view is that science doesn't create, it only verifies and recreates.

Religion is imagination without verification.

Science/engineering is imagination + verification.

We are never totally, absolutely or actually free, are we? — Alkis Piskas

I see it that, as children we are mentally free but physically bound.
Then by the time we get physical freedom, are mentally bound

Though a pedantic point, it's significant to note, as the article linked in my last post makes clear, that I referred to methodological physicalism – a criterion for evaluating scientific theories – and not the "all is physical" of metaphysical physicalism. — 180 Proof

Methodological physicalism is applied metaphysical physicalism.
Imagine if someone said "I don't hold racist views, rather, I just apply a racist methodology."
Edit: Unless the person's field of study is racial differences...which would mean they are studying the differences between races. That's not racist. But if they then say that the ONLY valid way to differentiate people is by their race, then they are being like the naturalist who says the only criterias that matter are physically observable ones.
In both cases you reduce people to their physical characteristics.