I see religion as cover for a lot of human nastiness. — Wheatley

What differentiates a religion created by somebody else or that simply doesn't feature an intelligent designer from your own? Lack of organized religion is still a religion if it follows dogmas or truths, sure many tenets of your belief are proven, though I doubt you've ever witnessed many, by experimentation, but so were those of others by miracles, the difference between the two is that they are non-repeatable- at least on a whim. You wake up every morning, follow a similar enough routine, and filter all conceivable information through your own unique and (one would assume) stable and consistent mindset and furthermore prefer to socialize and coalesce with people of similar belief. How is this different from a devout man of faith? Sure, you don't believe in something that hasn't been proven and according to some cannot be, at least at this time. Imagine if every scientist was like you, afraid or as I'm sure you'll reply simply uninterested in proposing something new and extreme, even just to yourself in your own mind, that would benefit humanity and explain that which is currently a mystery, something the majority would doubt or even scoff or laugh at. We'd have no theories, no electricity, no architecture. Faith and hope creates all these things, and it is nary your position nor privilege to discourage others in whatever brings the aforementioned alive and into the lives and habits of others.

You simply don't like other people's religion or beliefs, and you would make laws and even fight, kill, and die to promote this religion not only in your own land but worldwide, would you not? Two peas in a pod. Isn't it beautiful. The problem comes when those with non-traditional religions (no intelligent creator, there's nothing beyond what we see and if it doesn't sit well with you or can't be proven in front of a large enough majority to discredit your belief and as a result life choices and perhaps even worth, it's just crazy) allow hypocrisy to enter the arena and begin disallowing or forbidding the free thought and ideas or experimentation of others in place of their own. It's the same thing. More often that not, argument for argument, pound for pound.

You know what a liar or fraud is don't you. It's the oldest trick in the book. Leave a common marking or signature "item" or reasonable evidence of a person or people you wish to frame at the scene of your own crime, then just sit back and enjoy. Tsk tsk, give humanity more credit.

For the record I have no doubt, at least in the likelihood, that the majority of powerful individuals of influence, whether they claim to be religious or are involved in religion or not are corrupt and should be held accountable and replaced when appropriate.

In a universe where everything is ineffectual does this make moments precious and worthy of reverence — Benj96

It didn't until I happened upon two omniscient fortune tellers in this thread who know all that was, is, and ever will be, as well as being intimately acquainted with the entirety of the universe. Can't say I've ever ventured that far. That's pretty encouraging really. It's like God is with us.

There is some good in this world, but it's not worth fighting for. — baker

Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument.

You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same.

Who said the two are mutually exclusive?

The idea of man being set apart from the animals by an intelligent non-human creator (or at least the existence of such a being) is hardly a traditional Christian concept exclusively. And after all, as a non-believer, is that not really all a soul is? The life of an animal may be a life, but with hardly any introspection at all, becomes quite purposeless, futile even- at least compared to the ambitions men dream of. No need to rob us all of our humanity and drive with this myopic pseudo-intellectual resignation to explore and dream that is atheism.

Besides, the driving factor would be a soul is not like an appendix. You might need it one day. Sure "you don't know for sure" may be a weak argument in most discussions, but against the backdrop of the unexplained mystery that is life and the universe becomes quite valid, let alone powerful.

I don't think anyone is really pro-work, just pro-civility. Let alone the examples of how one used to obtain something they want or desired.. what if you were the only human being on an untouched version of Earth, Adam in the Garden, we'll say. Or even here and now if every other human being suddenly disappeared. Nobody to compete with, disadvantage, create lost opportunities for, harm, what have you.

Food is not going to just rain down from the heavens and into your mouth, will it? Shelter isn't going to manifest itself as you need it, nor will it repair itself, even if you're fine with a cave you still have to search for one. What if it becomes too hot or too cold or arid or flooded? What will you defend yourself against the beasts of the Earth with and who will make and repair it? You can't avoid work with any economic model real or imagined. Life as a game or otherwise not worth living is far from a new concept, though any biases can be identified by a truthful answer to a simple question: Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat?

why are we incapable of deliberately switching on all the senses when we daydream to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality itself — TheMadFool

Come to think of it that sounds horrific. Imagine if someone suffered from PTSD flashbacks from a painful, violent incident but instead of just severe anxiety also felt the same physical pain as well.

Some people are so familiar with certain sensations they can "almost feel" them with enough thought, say the sand between our toes or the warm sun on your skin. Or even simply reading a very well-written (or at least chock full of superfluous adjectives and nauseating detail) paragraph describing a texture. Not aware of the technical biologic details as to why or why not other than to say that's just not how a properly functioning human brain works, and for good reason.

mind-generated silumations are done in halves - some senses are not activated — TheMadFool

Compare it to a dream. If it was just as real (sensory identical) or perhaps of a longer duration than what you define as not a simulation, you'd have a whole new set of questions.

Interestingly enough I've had many dreams that at least at one point or another all senses, in the moment of having them, realized dreaming or not, were activated, and that outlier is the sense of smell. Pain, sight and hearing naturally. Touch.. hm? Not quite. I dream often and remember, albeit vaguely many if not most of them, never having a single dream where I physically "felt" (as in feeling a texture) or "smelled" something. Curious, I suppose. Taste, only partially. I've noted unique (similar enough) tastes to food or beverage consumed in dreams, though without the savor. Perhaps, dreams are a window into Hell. Or to be more upbeat, somewhere greater where we are no longer dictated by satisfying our woefully outdated evolutionary wants and needs.

What gives? — TheMadFool

You're not dangerously insane. There's little to be said beyond that.

I suppose to pad the reply some, of all senses we possess sight and visuals are probably the most consequential and profound of the human experience. Sure, smell is useful to discern wildfires or when food has gone (really) bad, hearing is useful to discern loud (typically powerful, dangerous) happenings as well as communicate, but for all the threats to the human body that can be detected and avoided with the other four senses, there are at least two more that can be done with sight. Not all perfectly overlap of course. But why else are we such vain creatures? Museums, designer phone cases, covers, above all visual-based attraction. We don't have "smellatoriums" that are packed with people and their families day in and day out smelling unique scents. Sure, we appreciate a fragrance that is to say to replace/mask a neutral or malodorous one, but we rarely "seek it out" just to do so. We don't have "feelatoriums" where people rub furry walls and various textures all day for the fun of it. We throw people like that in mental institutions. Sure, you'd rather touch something smooth and silky than a jagged piece of metal but again, actually going out of your way to do so gives you weird stares.

Edit: There's just so much more information that can be communicated and yes experienced with sight. We don't have streaming services that you and a friend or your family gather around and "smell" various smells for an hour and a half. You don't call up your mates or have grandma flown in from Rochester to touch a Home Depot carpet sample booklet for hours on end. Granted audio and hearing makes a large part of the modern cinematic experience but silent movies passed the time then just fine and if given the opportunity will do so now.

A never-ending meal of infinite courses that one can enjoy without any physical sense or sensation.

\

There are other options of course- don't put people into the game in the first place. However, you are right in the sentiment that once born, there are no other options but to play SOME economic game. The game itself doesn't matter. The injustice of having to play ANY economic game is what I'm interested in. That is brought about from the condition of birth, which is my biggest concern as that is the first injustice. Everything else follows. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps someone who's not you doesn't view life and it's benefits, rewards, and yes as you obsess over it's negatives, drawbacks, and moments of torment as a 'game' but something greater? I'd wager many non-theists would agree with me and others as this fact being relevant enough to spur religion itself now, wouldn't you?

Yeah but there's just something almost ethereal, mystical even about a sentence or piece of literature that you can ascertain completely different yet equally profound meanings from by simply reading them once more.

Regrettably I'm unable to come up with one after a few seconds but when these aren't unintentional, they're the cream of the crop as far as literature goes in my view. Unintentional ones often become the butt of jokes (ie. "Disneyland Left" joke) or even the subject of legends (ie. "Pardon Impossible To be sent to Siberia"). Not just simple metaphors or profane and juvenile double entendres or 'squeezing blood from a stone' as it were, rather true literary craftsmanship dripping with wisdom. It's becoming rarer and rarer these days. For example, I've yet to think of or even recall one.. though it may just be the lateness of the hour.

Not a big deal really not being in contact with people for a few hours but what if the entire internet shut down for a day? — Benj96

You realize it costs around 50 cents to make a simple phone call to just about anyone anywhere in the world at just about any payphone, right? Let alone your own cell or landline. I'm assuming you mean a true communication blackout which would be just short of a true blackout of all electricity. In places that experience severe weather such blackouts are common. Long story short, not only can your selfies and food porn wait, it will probably benefit every individual involved as well as mankind as a whole.

Edit: And even when the phones are down, there's always CB radios and satellite phones, though unless you're a highly successful drug dealer or international secret agent having the latter device in your possession is unlikely.

Another edit: And on top of that social media posts are literally just excuses to brandish some sort of accomplishment or express some sort of grievance to as many people as you possibly can while still being able to, from the safety of your home and/or convenience of your mobile device, state you were just "mentioning it" to a friend.

You wrote:"The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart..."
Is that an "or" or an "of" (ability of nature). — Nickolasgaspar

Or. Which does confusingly imply there's a state of non-consciousness compared to a consciousness that one must heh consciously "activate" whereas nature is just the simple tendency to with or without said intent. I suppose such wording leaves both bases covered.

I'd rather be treated like a dumb animal than judged as a evil human and treated accordingly. — Yohan

That's not what he asked. Dumb animals get eaten or if deemed 'dangerous' by humans are put down. 'Evil' humans are either legally liable as criminals or not. Though mob rule and even individual vendettas do offer a plethora of equally undesirable outcomes.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan

Heh, yeah there's this one culture called humanity. I've seen much worse happen to people who commit adultery, and not just toward the women either. I suppose it may support your argument but, you don't often see that in the animal kingdom. It's overshadowed by the constant stench of indiscriminate death.

I notice you capitalize 'man', giving some sort of recognizable distinction. Others do this by allocating the belief of a soul. You have much in common with those you wish to differentiate yourself from.

Fair enough. Let's go beyond an example and see, explore the phenomenon as you say. What's your definition (and relevant examples) of what is and what is not consciousness and what is compatible if not identical and what is contradictory to my own. I'll start I suppose.

What is consciousness:

The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart and distinct from other beings able to distinguish some sense of time and therefore "life" or "reality (ie. past, present, future). With the personal stipulation of being organic. Not all agree will agree on that last part

What is conscious:

- A mentally unafflicted human person of reasonable age
- Intelligent animals

What is not conscious:

- A highly intelligent AI system following currently non-existent and hypothetical coding that just so happens to perfectly mimic the human brain and its functions
- A single celled organism such as amoeba

Oh come now, how can we or at least expect others to identify with, let alone vote for someone or something they deem 'non relatable'.

It may be a shite show but at least the performers are entertaining enough to detract from the hopeless nature of what is or at least could easily be. Easy counter though, it's a downward and destructive spiral of who can exhibit/inspire the most immoral and unscrupulous behavior in not just themselves but in others while still being able to look at the man in the mirror at the end of the day. Opposing view, which is hard for the non-theist (and even then) to grasp is, we may miss it if/when it's ever gone.

Well written, can't say I came across anything disagreeable.

Did they use a telescope to see the neighbors down the street? Did they see the neighbors down the street holding a telescope? Was it the neighbors next-door who were seen down the street, or was it the neighbors who stay down the street? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Not sure if this is still "bayesian", admittedly I'm not familiar with the term, but context is key. Take the sentence in your example "I saw the neighbors down the street with a telescope". What are we talking about? Was it some stranger who just walks up to me and blurts that out? Or were we discussing our shared interest in astronomy or perhaps living in an age of heliocentric prosecution? Depending on the answer, the context becomes quite clear, at least reasonable enough to assume.

Every piece of knowledge we have was prefaced by a question we or someone before us once asked. Questions make the world go 'round. If you can't ask questions about a statement, it's safe to say the source knows far less than they attempt to present. Kinda like an intelligent bird that can "speak".

How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least.

Example, you know what you wrote and believe it to be coherent, as do I. That's well enough and much better even than if your post was about something like say, chocolate cake and it's gravitational affect on chickens, for example.

I think he's channeling the attitude and spirit of one Jonathon Swift, author of "A Modest Proposal". Sometimes one needs to see the extreme of their belief to see not just the unseen potential volatility of it, but the potential strength of an opposing one. Which interestingly enough doesn't necessarily change the rationale of either. Key word being necessarily.

Edit: Energy is life. Active vs. inactive. Kinetic vs. potential. One demands attention as it is of the here and now, reality even. Though the other could easily end up being the attention of demand for an entire lifetime.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people? — Xtrix

Never. Ever since humanity replaced geocentric theory for heliocentric theory, there was nothing but horrid weapons of war and disease. Nobody ever got hurt (or at least disintegrated and their homes irradiated) when we listened to our religious overlords.

If you feel like you have to "be something" at certain times but not others you're simply not what you're trying to be and are an actor. So act as you deem necessary. The world is a stage some say, and after all the show must go on.

I'll re-interpret this as something along the lines of "when to not be a douche", you have your opinions and others have theirs. Personally I happen to know foul behavior only appeases and attracts foul people into your life and only a fool would be taken back at the realization that what you put out and the people who deem degeneracy to be acceptable end up being degenerates and foul in your own life are your own just desserts, ordered at a premium with the lion's share of your time and mind. Though, I suppose there's exceptions. All warfare is based on deception after all. You can't trim the diseased branches of a larger system from beneath it now can you.

In A. "they" refers to the protestors, in B. it refers to the councillors. We know this because of our experience of the world. It's an example of something a computer couldn't know. — Daemon

They only refer to the protestors and councilors respectively, because the father, or author, of the sentence determined so. Or I suppose "it simply happened that way" or as you say, that's just how "the world" (generally) works.. There are numerous scenarios, one of which has been posted previously, where it could easily be the opposite.

The same (likely) context recognition could be achieved, albeit haphazardly, with a 'word map' database.

Councilor = government, order, ruler, leader, society, peace, stability

Protestor = worker, grievance, anger, rebellion, uprising, turmoil, injustice

The more general words (violence) matched with context specific words (they), that happen to match a subsequent 'word map' of words relevant/associated with each party or subject(s) can more often than not determine which party to apply said word to. It would take a great deal of finagling, sure. But it's doable. Not with any laser accuracy, of course. Which I suppose was your point.

What exactly are we discussing and for what purpose? I do fail to see the profoundness or any possible fruit of this topic. Computers, AI =/= human comprehension. I doubt there was any disagreement at any point.

Would you perhaps mind explaining it then, seeing as you now hold the minority viewpoint of 'understanding' in this discussion?

These are different meanings. In A the councillors advocate violence and B they fear violence (which has two meanings in and of itself). — I like sushi

Hm, I can see the point. Why not:

Out of fear of violence, the councilors refused to allow the protestors, whom are known to advocate violence, to demonstrate.

Or something of the like. Granted not everyone speaks casually in such a manner so it is useful for any application that plans to be relevant to be able to recognize as much variation in sentence construction as possible. Which as has been noted, is quite difficult.

Edit: And of course technically both sentences can mean either or, with a little thought. Granted we know and should assume the same meanings as in the OP, but there's nothing that prevents the opposite.

Democratic governments are created by and for the people. Yet we still talk about how the government (as an entity) treats its people. — Wheatley

Human nature cannot be escaped so easily, unfortunately, as your point reminds us of.

Business are like governments because they both act like an entity with goals different than individual people. — Wheatley

I think there's a Star Trek episode that covers this.. "the needs of the many" or some business like that.

to call these entities "people" is a bit of a stretch. — Wheatley

Again, unless it's an automated and unmonitored system, people are wholly involved in every benefit, gain, inconvenience, and grievance, though we'd like to think otherwise. We as frail beings subject to the whims of nature and biology have to invent a boogeyman of sorts, someone - anyone - who's not the man in the mirror. And that's why he'll never be caught.

Naturally, to understand what is one must first be intimately acquainted with what isn't. The first step is understanding whatever is can become what isn't. The second is understanding you know very little, if anything at all. Observations of current circumstance are not knowledge but simple consciousness, which as we know, is volatile and its state subject to change.

But they are not people. — Wheatley

Neither are these sentences, yet we know they're personal. Created by and for persons. Your point (what I assume to be at least) is not lost on me, I understand the "less than personal" environment that successful businesses tend to operate from (simply because the next guy who maybe spends a little less time being all buddy buddy with every single person who steps foot in the door and more time selling product and maximizing efficiency may make it in the black while the other guy remains in the red) the fact remains unless you're selling a product or service to a robot and/or employing them, it is in fact all about the people at the end of the day. Whether or not you "dehumanize" them as some would say to a paper sheet of demographics and numbers or not.

There are people that lack some of the most basic needs in life while others have abundance to sustain thousand of lifes all for themselves. — Hermeticus

Can't take it with you. Lost are those who call circumstance reality. Contrary to popular belief, you actually can make a horse drink. Though it usually drowns.

I was focusing more on businesses and how they relate to 'people'. — Wheatley

Well unless we're referring to some science fiction artificial intelligence.. business by definition is an endeavor by people. So how does it not relate to people becomes the question. Free market. If you're not relevant, you don't bring in new customers. It's pretty simple really.

It doesn't matter what I nor anyone thinks, what matters is the reality that we are "employed" that is to say indentured servants to our bodies and biological needs. Food, water, shelter, entertainment, interaction even. There are more people then resources. You either beat each other to death or work together and treat others as equals to address these needs. There are no other options, aside from enslaving others. How is this a socially acceptable debate?

What makes a good poem? A fanciful, grandiose, magniloquent assortment of words, a cornucopia of kitsch and familiar sounds we call rhymes that connect to our primal mindsets of pattern recognition? No, it tugs at the very strings that make us human! The heart, some say. The soul? This is for the reader to decide. Slow and steady may win the race but more often than not short and sweet decide the deciders.

I.
Thy.
Lie.
Why?
Cry.
Sigh.
Ply.
Tie.
Fly.
Try.
Buy.
Vie.
Sly?
Pie.
I.

Modern life in a nutshell.

Due to nature itself and an advanced organism's ability to adapt, we'll never know it would seem. Probably. Though I wouldn't call 'ignorance' a defining feature of 'evil' as it is commonly understood.

Interestingly enough humans cannot be carnivores, exclusively, due to the noted occurrence of scurvy when without fruits or vegetables for prolonged periods, yet the main argument for vegetarianism is "not eating animal products" but that conveniently does not include breast milk for obvious reasons, while socially breast milk is not an "animal product" is surely is product from a mammal, so depending on how rigid your beliefs are we still do in fact require food product from mammals.

Ready for the reductio to this view? Just think of all the things our ancestors believed necessary for their survival: world conquest, human sacrifice, slavery, etc. The list goes on. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yeah but belief isn't fact, people died from starvation and malnourishment without eating animals. No one died because some empire didn't conquer Antarctica, a man wasn't thrown into a volcano, or a people weren't enslaved, though they may have believed that, it doesn't make it so whereas yes eating is literally a biologic need that if unaddressed is more or less immediately fatal.

More broadly though, I think it has to do with size. No one cares about an ant or a roach or a flea, but a great blue whale or bear even (though the hostility is a factor) is so majestic it's an objectionable tragedy that will get you scolded on social media. Again, more psychology. Kind of ridiculous but it seems to be a combination of observable intelligence, size, and being able to relate to. You can hear a dog or cat whimper or scream in pain, as do we. Something that can't communicate in the way we do just seems like a lesser being. It also helps if said creature doesn't try or is unable to kill you.

There is no ‘universal’ meaning that isn’t subject to differing interpretations due to differing subjective and contextual items. — I like sushi

Ah, but now did you not just do the same? 'There is' harkens to the name of the biblical God of the Old Testament 'I Am', ala absolute facts even if stating that facts themselves are relative ie. subjectivity. You seem to know reality, at least more so than the next guy. How is that?

That which I simply cannot be bothered to change.

So, it's permissible to kill a brain-damaged human? So, someone could go to a special needs school and spray bullets inside the classrooms and nobody would bat an eyelid? — TheMadFool

It was an innocent (enough) quip at case-based abortion and neglect of the mentally ill in society. Not a quip per se more of a satirical statement that promotes awareness.

Red herring. Focus on the question/issue. What's a trait animals lack that if humans too lack it, killing humans for whatever would be permissible? I'm waiting, sir/madam, as the case may be. — TheMadFool

It's partially relevant.. but, sure. Let's see.. I'm sure there's a fancy singular word for it but in the absence of it from my vocabulary.. unconditional savagery. Men and dogs have this trait or lack of it thereof in common, they're generally the product of their environment, more or less depending on the breed, though that's contested.

Almost seems like something of a trick question that's really not that deep. Why not what's a trait humans possess that makes killing them objectionable?

It's why burning an effigy of someone is offensive, it's not the person but it's like the person. It's psychological among other things. In a sentence, ability to make known it is an intelligent equal capable of love, pain, and fear. Which may or may not justify anything as ability to make known does not equal anything but. Again, psychology.

if a human lacks self-awareness (brain damage, mental retardation) we don't kill that human — TheMadFool

Not if it reaches childhood at least. We let life take care of that.

More broadly, there was a time when man needed to eat animals to survive, perhaps before agriculture and when berries and nuts were scarce. It's already hard coded in our DNA. Sure, it can be changed. But who wants to go ahead and do that. Animals on the other hand, never needed humans to survive. Long story short, we needed them (in our stomach) to survive more than they needed us to do the same, which means they have the responsibility to be eaten. Heavy hangs the head. Besides, we can't eat each other. You'll catch "the kuru".

A virus doesn't decide anything, it adapts to the environment through mutations over generations. — Vince

What are you Bill Nye the science guy now? You don't know that, you've just been told it. You don't even own a microscope. I doubt you've even seen one let alone used one since grade school.

I know your type. You're not a philosopher, nor a scientist. You're an opportunist. Seeing what this 'philosophy' is and how it can benefit you and your monotony.

H. sapiens are alone on earth - we're, given what we've found out, the only species that's intelligent. — TheMadFool

Both ridiculous assumptions. Viruses and other bacteria are highly intelligent, being able to adapt to their surroundings and gain immunity to threats that once put them in peril. Just because we can't communicate with them or detect any form of thought in the manner of our own doesn't mean they don't "think". What's the difference between a man deciding to take a back road when his regular route is obstructed by a collision to avoid the inconvenience or hassle and a virus deciding to mutate to avoid succumbing to a vaccine? Sure, the man can say "this is why I did this" and anyone listening can smile, nod, and agree, but the same intelligence is present in both cases. That is to say, minus the fancy titles and vocalization, the same effect remains.