Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? — schopenhauer1

If the imposition informs you of a greater reality that perhaps you were oblivious to as opposed to some petty personal desire or conditions thereof, what do you think? Some dude calls me on the phone, "yo man your house is on fire", assuming it actually is and he wasn't the one who started it, that's more of a helpful and courteous gesture than an imposition. I'd think so at least.

Lack of faith in what? — Xtrix

In your own words, beliefs, and benefits it has in life it would seem. See, I happen to see your views as wrong, and so I have no disdain or even agitation in being insulted by someone I view as 'wrong' for as it is written, if these [your] works are wrong they will fail. Instead I feel neither pity nor superiority but concern to perhaps benefit you. Yet you seem to have no desire to benefit anyone else but yourself and your own belief. That's why I take offense. And sure, I could be wrong entirely. That should warrant compassion and guidance not wrath and insult. But again, you just don't seem to want that on those who need it, which is where my agitation comes from.

There's nothing to decide. There was a simple question with a simple answer. The answer was: the board of directors. Your answer, "the consumers," was simply wrong. Sorry that this upset you -- but grow up and get thicker skin. I'm not here to baby people.

2+2 = ?

Your answer: 3.

Real answer: 4.

"Well, I guess we'll just have to leave it to the readers to decide." — Xtrix

So why not have just said the "simple answer" from the get go instead of engaging in this pseudo-intellectual hullabaloo of a discussion? You have an answer to a question, and it cannot be proven wrong for you know all as far as this specific topic. Wonderful. Famous last words, but whatever keeps you going, you know? See, this is propaganda, not a debate. I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right, just simply by all definitions this is not a debate but an assertion, which is simply not what this site is for. You are here to baby people actually, because if you gave your audience any real benefit of the doubt let alone respect you would have been straightforward with your belief - I'm sorry "the ultimate truth" - from the get go, yet you were not. So at best you view the readers who don't agree with your beliefs as lost sheep or at worst .. to quote you "thin-skinned babies" who post "stupid" comments. And that's great, this is an open discussion forum. Just don't expect everyone to believe what you believe or think your understanding is absolute or relevant to anyone but yourself.

So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is? — Xtrix

Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does.

And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself. — Xtrix

Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this.

Haha I was thinking of correcting that. Replace that with the most counter-productive word to your argument or just omit it entirely. Do not ignore the rest of my very logical post please!

the markets, supply and demand — Xtrix

So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from?

This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings for hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely. — Xtrix

Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly.

Alternative to what? — Xtrix

Nothing, nothing at all. This entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point.

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation. — Xtrix

So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok.

See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid.

What is your alternative? Random people producing random things with no accountability whatsoever? We had that. Then we got sick of it, mostly from all the deaths with no recompense whatsoever, and so now there's an accountable structure. Anything with the previous quality no matter how small is in fact a corporation of some kind. I'm assuming you mean the most successful in power (which is you by the way, just again more successful) are bad. Yes, people without limits, rules, regulations and restrictions are bad. That's hardly a discussion at this point.

It is weak to revert to claims about never really knowing whether or not something is the case. — apokrisis

Is it now? Apparently all science and widely perceived progress is based on weakness. Do you still believe all events that we're not born with the knowledge of (which is all of them) is based on gods and magic?

Perhaps then, it is even weaker to call any criticism of one's beliefs or even a simple reminder that "hey. perhaps you might not know all there is to know" weak and to be tossed to the wind.

A whirlwind can’t repair itself and so it falls apart — apokrisis

A whirlwind, created by a larger biologic system that is distinct from itself, can however strengthen and prolong it, and in theory, allow it to exist indefinitely. See Jupiter's Great Red Spot that has been "repairing" itself for at least 400 years and for all we humans would know millennia if not much longer. What do you say to that.

Furthermore, what is life for that matter. That which is alive, moves or otherwise interacts with the environment in a matter that consumes that which allows it to continue to exist, breathes, etc? Bacteria is intelligent. We didn't know that let alone it even existed until recently. Ignorance does not define what is fact or fiction. Unless you let it.

Ok, perhaps I have a problem. Perhaps I need guidance. You see I'm coherent. So, be as your name suggests. Guide me, please.

the ability of fully respecting other people's boundaries. — Kaveski

Yeah well, until you learn the virtue of disrespecting the boundaries of those who disrespect those of others and solving the problem we'll say, we're all just pigs living in sh*t. With no value or purpose whatsoever. Subtly, carefully, of course. Loud morons dwarf modulated scholars. Cheating cowards dwarf honest and brave men. Deceitful, cruel men often best the kind and trusting. Maybe you should go do something about it. With tact and intellect. What all the negative persons I describe would die to keep you from. And they say it's for your own good. You'll be happier not doing so. Perhaps there's some truth to their claims. But. Is it really all about you? If so, you're already on a path to becoming the worst of them.

At metaphysical bottom, there is a stuff and information about it. And If we are to understand the stuff, that is the way it will always be. — Pop

Of course, for something to 'exist' be it physical or even a thought it has to have some properties to it. Without turning this into a dreadful discussion of qualia and having to phone up Daniel Dennett, it would seem we equate information with literally anything that exists, form, perhaps. A pure blue sky is information, that it probably won't rain, along with numerous scientific details that can be extracted about weather, climate, atmosphere, etc.

Matter possesses properties aka information, is what you're saying? Sure, it's either small, large, hot, cold, light or dark, inobservable to the human eye (regardless if any alleged humans exist or not) or it is. Descriptions, etc. Dang it, more qualia talk. So this is your (pen?)ultimate definition of information: properties. Matter, even.

Eh. A bit like riding a roller coaster up a steep hill and having it instead turn to the side and gradually return to it's resting place at a speed that wouldn't spill a full glass but, if that's what it is.

Information seems to be a fundamental quantity. The universe needs information fundamentally. It could not exist without it. — Pop

What if, like some suggest, there was a time when nobody was around who could perceive it? If a tree falls in the woods...

A time before DNA and plants even. Just, whatever you believe, I suppose prevailing theories would suggest empty void of various gases and dust that somehow were present, later coalescing to form stars and planets? Was there really information then? What was the "first" bit of information? The big bang? Perhaps, or perhaps prodding too far will render the mind unable to process information entirely. It's a real head-scratcher, or perhaps just a big knee-slapper. I am without information to discern which is most accurate!

I really like the analogy above about TV static being nothing and everything. It can be compared to atoms. We got satisfying enough answers in the OP already, discernment, patterns, etc. A hypothetical infinite and absolutely gray universe, but even a wall painted one color can show that.. if there is one who can perceive, they will. Naturally not only would there not be sentient life in such a universe there would be no knowledge. Is information reality? It becomes almost metaphysical. What is not available to a person, cannot be known. We allegedly live in a "world" where when your heart stops, you are dead. But do we really know this? I know some claim to, myself included, but I just feel there's some relevance somewhere here in this quest for more information about information.

Edit: I see the black hole information paradox has been brought up already, which to those not familiar is "[the suggestion] that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole" clashing with some fancy talk about how it can't.

They believe in something, be it spirit or flesh. Each have their own rewards and consequences. As to what is eternal or "real" essentially, that's something perhaps we'll never know. Of course, man is a misled creation from the get go, as some say.

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

The consumer. Otherwise, in no time at all, you have a bankruptcy, and without a golden parachute, a frantic CEO fleeing to hidden assets in Costa Rica.

Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. Otherwise, you're assuming a shot in the dark will kill your hired assassin. Bold. But there's been bolder.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste.

they lacked the knowledge of the cosmos of the modern day — SteveMinjares

What like which app gives the better discount on fast food burgers? lol

It just seems to me the teachings revolve around fear, fear of losing ones own individuality and fear of mortality and fears of there own conscious awareness. Since I personally don’t carry those fears and struggles and I find the teachings hard to rationalize. — SteveMinjares

Reminds me of the ol' switcheroo where one sign says danger and the other says.. I don't know fluffy bunnies or cheeseburgers or whatever you happen to fancy.

To each there own I guess... — SteveMinjares

Yeah. Guesses are great. Acknowledgement is transcendental.

I wouldn't feel too grateful at 10k posts the argument is more self-enforced than otherwise. :razz:

Anything the mind can comprehend? Is there anything the mind cannot comprehend that is not information? We fall back to the senses. Not seeing any. Anyone?

What do you call children who fail to learn from their parents and decide instead to kill them? Successors. It's literally child's play. Only with real vehicles and guns instead of toy ones. In many respects, this is the world we live in. How long will it last? Well, it depends on the mercy of the parent. Which I fear may be less than everlasting if the old adage of the apple doesn't fall far from the tree bears any fruit.

10 pages later, we have much talk about many things yet no consensus. As normal, we apply reverse.. not psychology but philosophy. What isn't information? Not random scribbles on a test because that confers information about the scribbler's intellect. So what isn't information? What a sentient being has yet to touch, it would appear?

Edit: But not even this! For as nature as it is understood here to be a non-sentient randomness of conformity can convey what time is best to plant, hunt, or harvest. So where does that leave us?

I accept the way of old thinking, that the Sun revolves around the Earth and anyone who thinks otherwise is really just a heretical loon and needs to be put away somewhere cold and dark where they can corrupt the children nevermore.

They're religious people. So they say. They understand they're either right or wrong and should accept that including any potential reward or consequence thereof.

everything is meaningless — niki wonoto

What if your "knowledge" or ingrained belief is meaningless? Oh wait, apparently it isn't. Logic fail. So, why not build on your own knowledge if it's so intrinsically excluded from "everything". Not ego, but knowledge. This is confused many a time.

I think people like me also have our own valid (& logical, rational) reasons to be a pessimist (or agreeing with philosophical pessimism), when looking at the world, life, (human's) society, existence, & basically the cold, harsh, cruel reality around us everyday (I still even haven't discussed about depressive realism, antinatalism, pro-mortalism, efilism, suicide, etc etc). — niki wonoto

Yeah things can be pretty sh*tty. You should think of life as a sandbox. You can build a castle or you can piss in it. Naturally, you being one person can't change the choices of others.. as an individual. But. You can shape a better tomorrow if you so chose to, at least you could try. Yet you don't. Understandably because this is unrealistic. You could shout good tidings from the rooftops and depending on the crowd may even be shot at. This is discouraging. But there are other ways.

What joy is there to succumb to negativity and be at peace with it compared to resisting it, even in your own way, and succeeding to bring joy to others thus bringing meaning to your own? These are the questions only you can answer. And I hope you do.

I read most of this and will continue to read the rest when time or interest allows. I think most people go too deep with anarchy as an established philosophy or frankly anything else. You just got people who want more then they have and on occasion realize, most people do as well and so, often under false pretenses, conform to the same playbook authoritarians do, being "a vision of a better tomorrow" .. such as theirs is. Anarchy is selfishness personified, insidious as it claims to offer freedom, to those who take it. Which never lasts for long. If it did, that means there's some structure, hierarchy, or otherwise means to protect said state of affairs. It claims there won't be, but rather it's simply the worst form of authoritarianism there is. It's been many a time "they utopia they seek is really a dystopia of the worst kind". People get weary of blood on the streets, having more teeth, entrails, and cadavers on a sidewalk then small change, paper products and trashbags, as well as having to walk even the safest street with a sword on your waist and your eyes focused just as frequently behind you as in front. The allure or glow of "maybe" having more than you have in an all out melee quickly turns to a dull ember. One that any person would soon believe with a little understanding needs to be extinguished entirely. The grass is always greener. And when it's not, it's a crimson shade of dark red.

Why would we wish to do that we wish we to avoid? ignorance is bliss. Would anyone disagree?

Mental illness is simply the inability to pull your own weight beyond reasonable circumstance. Which includes pretending to be mentally ill to avoid work in front of people who aren't. Violent outbursts in protest of said duty included.

Ok, so, can we agree that information is "an idea that can be conveyed that may or may not be subject to error"? aka flat out wrong?

basically a flat out lie is information, though wrong, remains equal with an absolute accurate account? alongside a deeply held belief of something that just so happens to be wrong?

I don't see how the confusion persists. I'm not trying to evade any example but they seem consistent with my account. Did I miss a chance to be confused? — Cheshire

For the laypersons reading which does not exclude myself, let's see if we can simplify things. This is your "account"

Some of it's information about the other room and some is imagined. One or more is inaccurate. When I enter the room I make my own assessment and compare notes. The part that doesn't change probably isn't imaginary. — Cheshire

Your assertion that the definition of information seems to be that which "probably isn't imaginary" that's great. Who knows, maybe Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny "probably isn't imaginary". I mean, we see them every holiday. And that's when the legends say they show up. So, you see what I'm insinuating logically.

Meanwhile, you remain a prince and a scholar. By putting down someone who by your own assertion is unintelligent. You poor bastard.

You better cling to your atheism and suckle at its bosom. It's all you'll have left, and even that will be gone when you need it most.

For the record I'm not a fan of Banno either. My point has receded. Is this the short story page?

Some of it's information about the other room and some is imagined. One or more is inaccurate. When I enter the room I make my own assessment and compare notes. The part that doesn't change probably isn't imaginary. — Cheshire

But does it have to be imagined? Perhaps the person who describes the bottle in the room as blue did in fact see a blue bottle in the room that was subsequently replaced with the green bottle the first man saw? Perhaps he has some odd eye condition or whatever that made him simply see it as blue. Perhaps when the third man came in a fairy showed up and rendered the bottle invisible leaving him no other choice but to say "there was no bottle in the room"?

Right. So it seems information is not information unless it conforms to an observable and generally accepted consensus, which relies on our own senses or rather trust in them. But it was, everything, even assuming they were complete lies, were equally information until investigated. So does that mean information not personally confirmed are but clues? Lies? Possibilities? Relative?

While the nitty gritty of it all, including all widely-accepted views, have just been eloquently explained in much detail, perhaps one may begin to ask themselves a few simple questions.

There's a bottle that is, by all widely accepted views green, that happens to sit in a room you've yet to enter. One man informs you the bottle in the room is green. Another tells you it is blue. And still another tells you there is no bottle whatsoever. Are these not all bits of information? When you enter the room and confirm whether said bottle is green, blue, or even existent for that matter, does that change? Why?

Really though, I was at first expecting to leave a bit of good-natured and well-meant snark for not posting a question and whatnot but, I see that's been thoroughly taken care of.

The man was ahead of his time, and if I'm not mistaken shared ideas that modern science has springboarded off of. Two bodies perhaps being the primal elements being earth, wind, water, and fire. Light has a uniqueness, clearly. Obviously earth being opaque is an exception but as far as the other elements this element definitely has a curious place.

You will not go away. You shall engage with me and Gregory until we discover a new paradigm in physics and understanding of reality.

Eh just a longtime fan of the old adage that is "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"

See. Take you. Why are you not sure you follow as opposed to simply dismissing my post as incoherent nonsense, which if so I appreciate your courtesy in not mentioning so. I've given you not information, but a request for information, that actually makes you seek the information you were already seeking, just in different places. Tricky, eh?

What is disinformation? From there you begin to gather what can be called an answer. As relative as it may be. Furthermore, what is the difference between information and education?

Can a distant whisper barely heard by you contain instructions that may save or take a life?

When you convince others to treat good as evil and evil as good, well, therein lies the real problem. For lack of complication, evil defined as a disregard for others when doing things that when done to yourself would find displeasurable. Or perhaps, some sort of joy or excitement from said activity.

The only thing that makes humans special is that we have free will. — Cidat

Yet few will ever truly understand this. Is a lion not the king of the jungle? A whale or shark the king of the ocean? If a tiny one-celled virus decimates humanity, is that not now the apex predator with free will? Until you embrace what you were given, you have neither freedom nor will, simply convenient or rather circumstantial will. And this, is what defines an animal and so differentiates a human.

Scientific laws are really mostly just uncontested theories.

The modulator on a guitar amp is not the sound it simply has a large amount of control over it.

Behavior can be against nature but nature can never be against behavior, which leads to my larger point. Just as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's idea of order is another man's idea of chaos. Without creating an enveloping obfuscation of both my point and yours in a fog of semantic divinity as I call it, well to be honest your question seems to be two unrelated questions. We have the age-old "nature vs. nurture" conundrum alongside the follow-up of, regardless of the answer to this question, is it chaos that defines one or the other?

Definitely a head-scratcher. Everything has an order to it, at least in some way, even if we fail to extract any real meaning from it. Before we understood what we now do about how many aspects of the world works around us, it was gods and magic. Depending on your interpretation, man brought chaos to order by simply being unable to understand it, which brought at least a sense of order to what was previously thought of as chaos. It's a real double-edged sword. I don't know how something works, so I might putter around with it some, and come up with an explanation that's not easily disprovable and makes people smile and nod their head. Is this a victory for chaos or order? The debate rages on.

Nietzsche's attack on the virtues of kindness and compassion seems to me an unfortunate flaw in his thinking. — Ross Campbell

Yeah, well. Just as unfortunate is the capacity for suffering and the likelihood of said virtues to be abused resulting in those who live accordingly to be taken advantage of in this world. Which can result in the very concepts (virtues) meant to prevent suffering sometimes creating more. You trust someone to borrow your car or a firearm, they might engage in a killing spree whereas if you did not they would have a knife. You may trust someone who said they broke down to enter your house and use the phone, needless to say what can happen there. It's a sad truth but, sometimes crime and cruelty really does pay. Or does it? What world does that create? An undesirable one in my view. That's where reasonable religion comes in. It teaches you to be just as smart as you are kind. If you actually pay attention.

his contempt for the virtues of pity and compassion regarding them as weaknesses which inhibit the "strong" individual — Ross Campbell

It's a tough one. The argument and counter-argument are best illustrated through anecdote. If you're a trained fighter and someone much smaller than you runs up, calls you a name, then knocks your hat off or even slaps you in front of someone you try to protect in life, it's easy to shake your head and laugh it off. If the person your with says anything you can just be logical and say hey, what do you want me to break his face open over some nonsense, learn to live and let live, and mosey about your day. Everyone around will think that's kind of awesome right away, and you'll feel awesome. However, in that scenario your biological fears were never tested since you knew you were never in really in danger, the other person was. But for sake of the anecdote let's say you're a highly spiritual pacifist both in this scenario and the following one.

In a different scenario, let's say someone much larger than you comes up and does the same. Now your biological fears are being tested, not the least of which being self-worth by proxy of peer approval. You had no interest in engaging in combat with someone who is lesser than you morally or mentally and so act in a way as to avoid it. Yet it's not the same, even if it really was. Humanity is a vain creature that can succumb to negative emotion at a moment's notice, especially when amplified by others whose approval is sought.

Long story short, people don't like that which they view as a hindrance to one's needs until one needs it themselves. Show me the man who lives adamantly by this about to face execution, and not a quick one either, and nine times out of ten I'll show you a hypocrite. After all, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.