At any given moment, there is beneficent qualia concerning the sensory data.

Philosophy forum --> Philosophy is a good idea to post. Post good joke. Don't post.

What do you call that?

That there is good and evil.

What, you saying that good is not defined

I know what good is, is more sensory phenomena, but it is improperly defined by word, though you can word the concept, it's not the particulars which lead to the resolution. It is ineffable.

At any given moment, there is beneficent qualia concerning the sensory data.

Philosophy forum --> Philosophy is a good idea to post. Post good joke. Don't post.

Morality is a widely accepted theory that is against you. There can be good, as is good.

Other men.

Agents.

Creating a social problem for someone.

I wouldn"t rule out a 'Yuri'-scenario; requiring a mental device that mimics a world.

The psychotronic game may be existential; this universe, may be the centre of someone's psychotronic game.

This sort of story springs to mind:

I'm in the right position, to view everything from this special angle. I have a mental device that mimics a world, soon you will build my heaven for me.

My guess is that a physicist does use philosophy in his work.

Philosophy spans across all fields.

As it's own field, it's pretty much redundant where societial growth is concerned.

Let's just say we were wise, if creating a philosophy free reality is our objective.

It's more for the toil of the thinking man.

Guidance.

The wise man collective.

Necessary for prosperity.

A secular core.

This is my argument, not tredding in the mucky waters.

The only thing separating our minds from the simulation is our bodies; otherwise every spirit would say "I am [this part of the] simulation".

(Something needs to be added here but I'm not intelligent enough, yet.)

In the simulation are other bodies, but I cannot tell if they have minds.

However, other bodies have consciousness potential, whether they're 'online' or not, it still makes logical sense; they fit into both normal reality and alternate realities.

Therefore, I think part of this existence is theorizing alternate realities.

The mind problem exists by way of a complex body continuum, and it begs the question, what alternate realities might/do exist?

This is my argument, tredding in the mucky waters.

I'm my mind, but I'm at the Super Store, taking in only a percentile of the available sensory data.

Is there another mind at the Park?

If there are no other minds then there is a lot of waste in the production of my reality.

I would consider it an attack...

Is it okay to think only some are P-zombies? Why would high quality lives not be conscious?

I am only sure of my mind, therefore it might be that I am the only one.

"Therefore, it might be", is something uncertain itself.

I am certain my mind(What is Mind?) exists (and is solitary; is this right?) but can't be certain other minds exist.

What is mind? Is a good question; do you think your mind is solitary?

The only thing I'm sure of is my genetic build.

Solipsism is either weakness, in regards to being in reality, or a theory of an alternate reality(that is usually incomplete).

Does anyone ever say "TheMadFool" is the only one who exists?

You base theory on "How do I Know?" - "it could be" - "the logic would be different" - "I don't know it yet."

No-one is here with the scientific answer for their solipsism.

Is this all in your mind - is the logic bent? The logic has not presented itself as bent.

What shadowy essence keeps you here?

You are aware of thought, that can be answered using science; scientific explanation replaces certain, in every context.

Thoughts: "I'm here, thus thoughts"

no because certain wouldn't be scientific. A tarot reader, maybe, not a philosopher. Thoughts are possible because... I think. Therefore, science on thought.

,

It's not the word 'certain', that means nothing.

Experience of thought means the faclilities for our prolonged metamorphasis are healthy and we can think in real time.

The thought is "up there" perhaps.

If merely thinking, my thought is certain, there is build up because all I'm doing is projection with a stern face.

Moments do pass.

What is the forge of thought?

Solipsism is weakness or an incomplete theory of an alternate reality.

Is it stupid to think you're the only one? Then great danger may be before you...

"I think therefore I am", can be reduced to, "I act therefore I am." Thinking is an action, thus "I act", would be more sensible.

In all honesty I never thought much of the quote.

I act, therefore I am, doesn't make sense(neither does "I think"). I am thinking, thus I am (What? A part needs to be added). I am thinking thus I am real, thus I am truth, thus I am part of the universe. If it were stated any of these ways, it's still an incomplete statement.

Can we be sure of other existences? Personally or as a species? I am sure of some others around me. By some strange means I may be able to confirm other simulations; but we're so discreet in the massive simulation that contains us, I doubt we'll ever find proof of another simulation.

Selt-taught but 16 years.

Is there a way that art can be judged truthfully?

If art is thought about for it's meaning, it's not thought about for the artist's skill, which is a different category of judgement. There is such thing as stroke.

We can talk about the competitive nature of artists, not about quality of interest but skill of artist.

However skill of artist can generate good interest, surely this is the highest reward for an artist.

The best artist likely has the most advanced stroke.

Imagine the dreamers art.

Someone had created us with the stroke, perhaps it is lesser than being created without the stroke.

Art doesn't have to be beautiful but beautiful art can be made.

Beauty is that which is kind a person's or group's sense.

Different people can consider an artwork beautiful, however, that's because it's kind to their senses, not because it is universally beautiful.

Good art is art that art which generates high quality of interest.

In this scenario, you only attracted the interest of the king with your art.

Who's interest matters?

Does the king's interest outweigh the prospect of millions?

What if I find your art is beautiful? Does that mean it IS beautiful? No. If we all find it beautiful, does that mean it IS? No.

There is some collection of interested parties saying the artwork is kind to their senses.

The artist had generated interest - of X quality. The man with the best eyes is interested, therefore his artwork is Y quality of good.

To conclude, it is about interest but not quantity. Quality of interest that is generated by artwork confirms what is good art. Art stands as X good.

If your heart attacked your consciousness might be pulled from your mind.

Your mind only receives consciousness, but it's trasmission is the heartbeat.

Our consciousness experience is largely down to biology.

Temporal nervous arteries, on each side of the head, provide calm necessary for some thoughts; perhaps thought consistency would be less if our temperament were restricted.

Art doesn't need an artist - it needs balance.

An artist is an expert.

When is a good time to give up?

Note that sometimes when people argue, their words are spontaneous(I know because I have done it); instinctively, we think we know. Again, sometimes, sometimes I know.

How hypnotic of you.

What do you think, you can answer yes or no to the God problem through metaphysics?

Then the answer is Atheism.

I think you'd need super powers, more than metaphysics to truly measure God.

Metaphysics deals with what's in the universe.

God isn't really in the universe. I don't think they're authoritive on some fantasy unless they're atheist.

So a raven is a black thing? Okay, I'm with you.

all black things are black, all non black things are non-black. A raven is a raven.

Why is B = R?

You might as well say ravens are black winged birds, etx. Rather than going through thought-process on primarily their blackness, consider whole ravens in the statement. All non raven things =/= non ravens. Implying a non raven raven.

All non black things =/= non-ravens

They are part of the universal mind, 'spirits' probably use trees.

But what a pointless expression that is.

It proves if unicorns exist God might/does exist.

All non black things are non-ravens, no all non black things are non black. I don't see where the relationship is between non black things and ravens. I believe it's lesser perception than what ravens are entirely.

We have only taken a raven partially, we think we have defined R with B so raven is fitted oddly into the statement. Non black things =/= non ravens, as math?

B = R.

Why if we take only a raven's black? The statement is tactile or means nothing. It is not a statement about fundemental nature.

You've created a random category.

A good question may be if black exists, might ravens exist?'

non black things =/= non black non ravens

Consciousness is a state created by beating heart and mind with universe.

But all black things are not ravens, so you would also have to add it's direct definition. What you have then is so close to a raven, you might as well call it a raven. Non-ravens are other.

The fact that a raven is black doesn't mean mathmatically all non-black things are Non-ravens.

This statement doesn't make sense, part B of R2 is strange. I feel like I was taken on a ride.

Your statements do not falsify, R1 and R2.

You're honestly onto a red herring here.

I was talking about the bird itself is using the wood, whose is the nest?

It's like - 'I am making a base' - the bird says.

What can be expressed in a pure sign has far more potential than what can be expressed in words.

Art, is not just a sign, but meant to imply something, I.e. Of an artist.

Problem is we subliminally think art is like a word in a way, not like a sign.

It doesn't send a message, it's ineffable, but it definitely sends something; there is that which can be defined by it, but it's art factor is zero.

God is a specific creator, not creator in a neutral sense.

A builder is a creator of buildings.

A God is a creator of universes? No. That's not right. We need a new word for it.

God isn't a word we apply to a creator, it has a whole, non-scientific doctrine.

The new word should be defined: X: creator of universes.

When people conflate God, flexing it's meaning, it's annoying - that's suited better for X.

We don't need to rely on the Bible for X. Christians, not only rely on the Bible, but also conflate God to be used in contexts where it's not associated with the Bible.

Let's refresh ourselves.

The universe exists.

Does that mean something must have created it?

If yes...

Is this something God(a characterized creator as the Bible defines)? There is no current evidence to suggest it.

Is this something X, a creator of universes? Yes, we just don't know it personally.

We can be evil, as long as we moderate ourselves, enough to allow for good.

If we're not to fall into temptation of meat, per se, then meat trees or some other alternative ought to exist. They don't, people will kill animals, and as long as they don't over consume, it's ok.

Yes, we are a part of the planet, but still, if we weren't so evil, the planet would be self-sufficent (including humans).

The planet doesn't need help, it implies we work for the planet's health, rather than just live - we need to moderate ourselves.

Edit: Okay, maybe I'm wrong, we have been very evil. It may need help, but that's an abnormality.

Surely he's using someone else's art(in reference to the bird and nest picture).

That is beautiful mate.

The symmetry of the right and left horse, and the sea-like desert texture, caught my eye.

Thought-process on fundemental nature and non-exclusive time.

Your words aren't cheap my friend.

This one's on the house.

I drew this.



It's art.

I'm tenative to move away from the definition, it's an expression of 'human consciousness', and am sticking with the Oxford definition (dare I say, not only human?).

If I wanted to express my consciousness, I'd do a black fill with small pink and white dots.