Can't be conscious without a brain. That's why someone in a vegetative state is often declared 'clinically brain dead', as in there is no evidence of substantial brain activity detectable. Their body is alive, but they're not "there" so to speak. Yet there are cases of folks recovering from such a state. I don't seem to recall if they "remember" anything or not and even so it could be simply from the process of losing brain activity/regaining it and your "mind", "consciousness", "spirit" or whatever meshing back with the stimuli your brain and body experienced/"recorded" while you were "gone". That's just a theory of course I'm sure there's more information available, but probably not a whole lot.

Edit: apparently being in a coma/similar state of abnormality is not being 'clinically brain dead', the former just means you can't respond to stimuli or communicate and that there is nominal brain activity. The latter is true brain death (no detectable activity whatsoever) at which point the person is considered legally dead. No one has ever "came back" or recovered after true brain death they say.

Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

All I know is their crap smells the same as ours and are ultimately subject to the same laws governing life and death. They can just do whatever they want at any time, or can they? I imagine it'd be something like a lifelong jail sentence. You can't go (just) anywhere or do anything and you'll never really know how other people are. Everyone you try to meet or run into on the street or anywhere will either have their best face on because of what you have/can do or their worst because of what they don't/cannot. Sure you'll be able to do and experience things here most never will ie. private island parties, yachts, exotic cars, homes that are like castles, weekend vacations that cost more than the average person makes in 2 years, but you'll never have a normal family life or be able to let your kids grow up normal. You'll walk around your whole life with a target on your back. I wouldn't care for it. Reminds me of the saying "A nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."

As one points out, it's worth mentioning there's a difference between being an introvert and being anti-social. I'd say, the introvert prefers or rather sees heavy, constant social interaction as just a thing to do every now and then to change things up, not as a necessity. I've read many introverts view heavy, prolonged social interaction as "draining" whereas extroverts need it to feel alive. I've considered myself as an introvert these days yet when I was younger being around folks was my favorite thing. I wonder if it has anything to do with one's upbringing? I was raised for the most part in a single child household, myself obviously being that child. I imagine you tend to become accustomed/accepting/feel "at home" based on your upbringing. They say the first 5 years of life are the most important and ultimately dictate the kind of person you'll be in life.

fae — TheMadFool

How would you like if i made an interesting post and just included an inrefertial (nonsensical and made up) word in it for no ryhme of reason. English language forum. Thanks.

I am in favor of a corruption less system, while others may value a speedy system. Arguments can be made for either system — The New Publius

One argument supersedes any of the opposing arguments for either and that argument is that the former is simply not possible. Though I think you mean what should be given priority in reduction (corruption/miscarriages of justice vs. extremely long wait times) as opposed to what should be reached absolutely. Am I correct?

Instead of arguing about a Moral Law let us try to discern what the absolute Moral Law is. — The New Publius

This should be fun lol. What is absolute? Something that doesn't change regardless of circumstance or viewpoint ie. something incorruptible and not subject to relativity. Morality meaning virtues or ideals widely accepted as positive and conducive to an enjoyable and pleasant society. Law meaning established rules and codes, typically with punitive measures that are enacted upon an individual deemed guilty of breaking one or more.

However, the idea of an "absolute Moral Law" is curious, to myself at least. It attempts to cast something often argued as subjective (Morality) as something that can be absolute, and so codified as Law. Which I think is not only possible but has been done with at least the majority of relevant persons being in agreement. The Golden Rule, as it were. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. We, emotionally, mentally, and biologically don't want to be killed, injured, or stolen from. So this is one potential example for your consideration. Of course, some take this even further. No one wants to be horrendously and brutally insulted or degraded in an extremely loud, rude and savage manner. So, someone doing so can be charged with "disturbing the peace". Though people do argue this is a violation of the concept of free speech, the individual pursuit of happiness (as defined by the individual), and perhaps even the concept of Freedom itself, specifically a free and open society. There's room for argument in either direction I suppose.

Is there anything more then competition in disguise in the world? — Benj96

I always enjoy your posts. They're thought-provoking enough to spur great debates, yet relatable and concise enough to be understood by a novice in philosophy.

I'd say there's plenty more than competition. Perhaps? The love. togetherness and "comfort", feeling "home" with members of your family. Thrill seeking hobbies and other entertainment such as skydiving or going to the movies. No one is "competing" during these times, they're just enjoying.

What does it mean to refuse to compete with everyone else? Is it even truly possible while still living or is it only the act of death in which one stops the race? — Benj96

I'd imagine a balanced view of "refusing to compete" doesn't mean rejecting literally every instance of competition no matter how small, ie. a friendly game of cards. Rather someone who would hold that position probably just doesn't want to turn every single interaction with his fellow man into a virtual "fight to the death" for every little thing. He's content with what he has and doesn't mind being second place. He has nothing to prove to anyone but himself, and potentially his idea of a higher power. He doesn't need approval from a world teetering on the brink of insanity, be it in the form of fame, glory, power, or unnecessary riches. He simply is content with the knowledge that at the end of the day when he rests his head for sleep, he was the best person he could be.

Life is about the person you are today competing with the person you were yesterday. Other people just help out by reminding you, he's catching up.

Ok. And faith moves mountains. — Miguel Hernández

If one is capable of doing something, do you think they would have a better chance of doing it quicker/easier with faith in their ability and action or without?

But for the car, better if you put gasoline. — Miguel Hernández

Again, no argument there.

In order to be powerful, one must enjoy dominating others. — Pinprick

Not necessarily. Perhaps it is because of the fact you wish to see others free and not under subjugation you (by some off chance, hypothetically) convince a large enough majority of the same viewpoint and manage to gain a footing in the "power structure" as it were. You understand, to make an enlightened omelette of freedom a few misguided, woefully shortsighted eggs need to be cracked. For their benefit, of course. You understand the orders you give to others are not only easily rationalized but proven to be more for the benefit of those taking them as well as others subject (led/empowered by) yourself than for yourself. You intimately know the pain, confusion, and suffering those who follow you would face without your leadership, suffering that would be incomparable to the minor instance of humility exhibited of/when following a respected (and usually proven) leader.

In order to enjoy dominating others, one must be at least slightly sadistic. — Pinprick

No argument there.

Maybe try writing something a little more coherent? — ToothyMaw

I'll try but don't get your hopes up. If there's one thing philosophy teaches us it's that anything not immediately understood is a dead end.

Anyway, open governments where law and order can be not only applied but openly scrutinized by all reduces human suffering.

Pain is all in the mind. Can be overcome/rationalized. Though I've never been physically tortured to an extreme degree (been through a few painful mishaps no doubt but still a far cry from the psychological contexts of situations you describe).

In the last example I was talking more of hypothetical torture situations for a foreign combatant/intelligence agent (ie. someone who has something "worth knowing") as opposed to a citizen being tortured for merely criticizing his government. Though there can be parallels. My point (or attempt to remind others of good news) was that governments don't usually just "horrifically torture" random citizens who just happen to be a bit dissatisfied, want more results than they're currently getting and who wish to take things into their own hands. Then again, some do.

Just curious, what is the point or message of your OP exactly? Pain can bring trauma? That federalism, shared powers, and an open enough society that allows these things (CIA waterboarding) to actually see the light of day as opposed to crimes and persons never being heard of/from again is good? If so, you did a bang up job.

Every government or power structure is full of (not the majority [hopefully]) s**t people, evil people, psychopaths, etc. Those are the most inclined to seek/reach/maintain power in the first place. It's how open the society is that allows these things to come to light in the first place so it can be corrected, as you've so perfectly illustrated. If not unintentionally. You don't kill the entire octopus just because one of it's arms happens to be cancerous. You amputate it. Then it'll grow back nice, new, and healthy. In time.

Can you explain what you mean by this? — ToothyMaw

Do you think I can?

Oh you don't need an authoritarian regime for torture or trauma, life and unrestricted human nature will do that plenty well on it's own. Same with depression and hopelessness. Besides, stupid is as stupid does. You don't blame the animal when it acts as it is and shows to all who may observe it truly knows no better. The worst victims are those made or raised to be so malleable by the fears and the worst of life they view themselves as part of it or that it's "right" or "necessary", and need tell themselves nothing.

See religion and atheism have one thing in common. Both groups seek to prove to one another something that cannot be proven is fact.

Other than that, they say pain is all in the mind. I wouldn't think that happens too often these days. Anyone entrusted with anything useful would be trained to handle it properly. Usually, by illustrated and proven example that the long term value, goal, or objective of whatever reason or cause the hypothetical torture victim was involved in (that captured said persons interest in the first place) overwhelming dwarfs the value of any other pleasure, joy, or accomplishment (and so cost of pain, anguish, or failure) the person could have ever hoped to achieve (or avoid) in life. Otherwise, why would the person have joined to do whatever they were involved in in the first place?

Well you have now. — Daemon

Well let's be fair now. I'm going to assume, considering your contentedness and use of the internet, you're from a first world country. So, you are wealthy, recognized, popular, and influential simply by matter of affiliation. You could have little to nothing in savings, be virtually unknown in your community and anything you ever say could constantly fall on deaf ears or otherwise be ignored. As an individual. Yet, you are not only subject to but endowed by the same rights and freedoms and resulting use/effect of wealth, influence, etc as the richest most popular persons in your nation. And so. The difference is a matter of personal ability to satisfy excess wants and desires on a whim and little more.

I thought ~ was a symbol for approximation/estimate/or "around". I have ~5 dollars, meaning I have more or less somewhere around five dollars.

When it comes to these kinds of paradoxes I'd say it's more than likely one or the other is factually incorrect/untrue/incoherent.

Therefore I conclude that the more childlike in nature we are, the more wondrous, beautiful, and magical our world will become. — Thinking

Children have guardians who deal with life's stresses for them. The problem is stress, realizing nobody is going to take care of you but you (or at least not like you can). The horrors of the world both then and now are enough for anyone with even an inkling of concern, care, and innocence to rethink their mindsets.

There's always going to be someone who wants to steal from, harm, or otherwise wrong you. You can't pretend like the world is a perfect place. It's not. Though, you can learn to crack a joke at yourself and your own misfortunes, take it all with a grain of salt and a smile, and learn to be thankful for the circumstances that are in your favor, even if they seem to be far and few. Famine, war, disease, as well as hatred, contempt, and indifference for one another are all very real and at times overwhelming parts of the human experience. To be prepared for the horrors of this world in hopes of avoiding them or at least handling them to the best of one's ability if and when they do arise, is to have intimate knowledge of them and their effects. Which a child cannot. Your line of thinking is admirable however and may have great truth to it. So long as you understand there are dangers to such a philosophy. Not everyone wants to play ball, essentially.

Radiation, chemical reactions, and flesh, nails, or hair (whether attached to a living person or not) still get categorized properly? Bodily fluids, including those related to reproduction? What about politicians?

Also, living organisms have or can have will or intent to avoid taking the least amount of action, but our bodies are still inevitably doing so... the aging process, etc. Or is this not relevant? I'd have said anything that is an 'organism' that's not dead or 'accumulates knowledge' or rather is capable of possessing it is sufficient enough. What of advanced AI?

Pretty sure words like nowhere/nothing are meant to be used in conjunction with other words of substance or that they have implied wording when used depending on context.

Nothing [of value/interest]. Nowhere [to be found]. Etc.

*long sigh*

1. Yes obviously something will always be something +1.
2. No.
3. No?
4. See 2.

I could reframe the question for you. What's the value of X? — TheMadFool

It would have to be a dynamic value. Which defeats the purpose of placeholder constants in the first place. Entropy, half-life, etc?

The following definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster — TheMadFool

Simple solution. Merriam-Webster is nothing and so cannot be conceived by the mind. Therefore, nothing can now be conceived by the mind.

See. Tact. Not hard.

Nah we've all been there I'm sure.

This cannot be allowed to stand. My loyalty is totally with those protesters and they shouldn't have to spend 1 second in jail.

I propose that the free world assembles a military coalition to go and liberate Thailand. — Paul Edwards

Instead of tossing the lives of tens of millions of Asians to the wind (again) as well as possibly starting WWIII, why don't concerned parties (or "you") have a dialog about how the world is aware, upset, and changes perhaps need to be made to avoid further tension in the region as well as further domestic unrest, starting with the release of all protestors or if not asylum outside of the country, judging from your.. selfless concern for your fellow man, why not yours. They will be allowed to thrive, grow, prosper, and yes, protest to their heart's content. You don't want sanctions because it would harm those who believe in the right to speak out against injustice. That's fair. Few could argue with that. However you nevertheless cast them as expendable by saying a "fair fight" is sufficient. Instead of strongly encouraging the government of Thailand to be reasonable by means of government-to-government relations and dialog, or perhaps even reaching out to the them/educating them via social media, you'd easily dispose of the majority of Thais simply due to the fact they were raised with beliefs different than yours by no consequence of their own. They believe they're defending their homeland from foreign influence and control, perhaps even religiously. Do you seek to reach out to them? To show them the joys and pleasures the freedom of an open society allows, freedoms you would allegedly fight and die for? No, you simply "don't give a shit" and have also stated -- clearly and unequivocally -- you would rather them slaughter each other. Please, leave diplomacy to the diplomats. Or at least be more tactful ffs. Jesus Christ. If this is what we have to work with, I'm turning commie. lol

Post of the Year.

An antirealist is "a person who denies the existence of an objective reality". — Michael McMahon

It's probably been touched on somewhere in this thread no doubt but where does someone who thinks the person or person(s) even if it is the majority or whole of society is.. I dunno, just wrong lol, fit in?

Happened before, geocentrism. Every person would have called Copernicus an "anti-realist", whereas in reality, he was surrounded by not just a society but an entire world of them. What of that?

Bah, either way. Raising a glass right now to the original conspiracy theorist, Copernicus! Or so we're told... :grin:

Would you be willing to share what they are alongside what they mean to you and what your first guess would be and why?

Edit: At the risk of this site turning into Stack Overflow (ie. do my work for me vs. a repository of knowledge) which admittedly I've used the site mentioned for comparably similar purpose... I'll give it my best guess.

Three notions. Acquisition and Transfer (interestingly separate notions, the former being "unowned" which doesn't mean "unused", "uninhabited", or otherwise "unneeded".), and Injustice (in regards to the first two, blatant theft?). Each with the context of "justice". Therefore, if there is "justice in Transfer" there is no other Acquisition and the third notion is redundant. Though, I doubt that was in the plan otherwise there wouldn't be three to begin with. Bearing in mind the nature of "how it works" it would seem either the 3rd is most important if a majority or large enough minority deems it so, otherwise, by all forms of Darwinism or in other words "being a prick" or "chasing the paper" as it goes, it would naturally be the first, closely followed by the second as those subject to those in charge of the majority would demand that at least their own trades and property be protected. Depends who you ask, who's in charge, and what's "going on" as it would be.

transvaluation of values — Coryanthe

I'm not intimately familiar with his writings though one of my favorite cousins is. Boy did it mess him up lol. For the rest of us this means.. things like how virtue is actually selfish and selfishness is really the most virtuous or truthful path one can take in life, etc? Nihilism, meaning there is no meaning, is pretty hard to surpass to be honest.

If so I can point you toward a few dictators and their quotes. One even has a book.

Edit: Ha, Banno beat me to it.

Does anyone have any other opinions on this subject? — IvoryBlackBishop

Dopamine is addictive. Why go through the motions of maintaining a healthy relationship if that's all you're really after.

There's many theories and beliefs as to why it's unhealthy ranging from the understandable to the downright bizarre. Heard it all. From folk tales like it can make you go blind, to religious views that it's a "waste" or other versions like "you have limited ammo" before you don't know what you're gonna get, and even more farfetched like every time you do a kid is born somewhere and one day you're gonna run into him. That and some say it's just gay. Sounds odd but you can't neglect the fact your mind and body is still reaching full mental and physical orgasm by vigorously stimulating a member of your own gender with your hands, even if it is your own. Just what I've heard.

Porn is a side topic, which many also believe is unhealthy. First, you're watching another person with a person you're trying to focus on. Which subconsciously may be a little unhealthy. Let alone the industry, no one wants to see or even hear about their sister, daughter, or future, current, or ex partner baring it all for the world to see and.. doing that. Heard an interesting fringe theory as well. Some suggest it can lead to perversion as you're subconsciously training yourself to become aroused by imagery or video of persons who by visual comparison are much smaller than you the viewer. It's an interesting take.

If anything it can lead to an unhealthy addiction that takes up your time and even leaves you burnt out for your life partner(s). That's not fun for either.

Can there be more than these two things? — Eugen

There in fact, is. Anti-matter. Though I've never seen it. Perhaps there must be anti-mind as well? :grin:

Really though, depends on how we define the two. Is the mind- consciousness? Surely the brain is just another organ, undoubtedly made of matter. How could there be only mind? If all human beings were somehow wiped out, everything physical would just disappear? I think there's a sci-fi series episode like that.. and a few solipsistic posters who believe something along those lines.

I suppose emotion, "will", concepts, and obviously thoughts are all mind. But are they?

Maybe there is a plan maybe there isn't. Point is that in the context of this Omni-being, all it's creations can only do what it wants. There is no choice. — 8livesleft

How could one justify the existence or purpose of a "Hell" then?

I was in a discussion semi-recently that touched on this concept a great deal. I think you or anyone else interested in this discussion might enjoy reading it. Starting from here.

I sense a tone of sarcasm in your reply that I could really do without right now. — Dymora

It wasn't intentional. I do view such ideas as "silly" however it's a very real debate to many, the idea or question rather of what truly defines "consciousness" and whether or not it specifically has to be organic. Again, I find the notion a little ridiculous but if you browse around here some you'll find plenty of decent arguments both for and against. I was just curious is all. Trying to make you and others re-examine held beliefs, specifically the reasoning behind them and relevant definitions. That's just what we do around here, I think. Myself, at least. :grin:

In my definition "soul" has no religious connotations at all. Just a term for mutual understanding. — Dymora

You're a unique one I'll give you that. So, by your definition, pack animals have "souls"? Why not bacteria or even circuits in a computer then?

One where everyone is told or otherwise believes it's a dystopia, and so constantly seeks and works to achieve one. No time for petty squabbles, strife, or discord- inevitable outcomes of human nature absent of any agreeable purpose or dire urgency. Only pursuit of what was lost, with little time for anything in between. Tried and true you know. Just watch Independence Day.

Seeing this what is your opinion on the subject? — CallMeDirac

Well, generally speaking one could say, accurately I might add, every benefit science brings also brings a detriment. Sure, we can live longer. Now we're nearing overpopulation. Sure, we can defend ourselves better. Now the entire world can be engulfed in a nuclear holocaust by a mere accident, misfire, or misunderstanding. Sure, we understand how germs work and can now circumvent many. Now they can be weaponized and wipe out all of humanity. Sure, we can entertain ourselves to our heart's content by mobile devices. Now we walk around all day like zombies, hunched over, necks bent staring at our phones all day neglecting to actually speak to one another. It's hard to say if it was all worth it, all things considered.

Beyond all that however, no scientific law, fact, or understanding came to be without some form of thought experiment. Some person asking themselves "what if...?" - In this respect the two have much in common. Throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Generally speaking you shouldn't attempt to murder someone in cold blood just because you don't like the way they look. They have places that can help you if you feel the urge to, so long as you haven't done it yet.

Beyond that, there is no 'outcome' to reward other than hypothetics. Not a good example, in short.

Let's look at it another way. Say you planned to lure a known rapist to your house under the pretense of being a teen girl. Say some random dude whose car broke down on the way to volunteering at the old folk's home happens to knock at your door with the same haircut or something. What do you think should happen.

the obsession — Dymora

Any obsession inhibits much more than enlightenment I'm sure.

As far as material goods in general, more than likely. Why do anything more than you have to if you don't need to, right? That's how the mind works. Always looking for shortcuts or rather more efficient ways to do things. That's how inventions occur.

Enlightenment, at least in my understanding, generally has a bit of a spiritual/metaphysical context to it. Perhaps not always. Devoid of these things 'the self' is little more than flesh, which most religion states will pass away or is otherwise temporary.

Enlightenment to some can be as simple as a higher state of knowledge or understanding, like what occurs naturally through adolescence. Some however see it as a bit more...

Your life would have already been fully mapped out and he room for choice is none. If you cannot change your path do you have choice in your life? — CallMeDirac

I think we might be conflating two concepts here as one. An omniscient being would simply know the choices we would make in advance, regardless of whether or not they were in accordance to the plan we were assigned. Doesn't mean we don't have the chance or even many blatant opportunities to reform.

It's the fact we can deviate from this plan and do have choices we experience more hardship and suffering than needed. Question is, how do we know what the plan is?

Touching on that religious perspective, according to Abrahamic religions there is a form of punishment in the afterlife. Even in others, reincarnation or justice either good or bad. So, if we truly had no choice, why would a God create someone destined to go to Hell or otherwise suffer? Doesn't add up going off of most popular religion.

The lack of intelligent life is only proof of our own inadequecy which discounts the latter half — CallMeDirac

Sorry, I don't listen to inadequate responses.

Real is the opposite of what is "fake". So one must first ask, "what is fake?" The answer to that is subjective and based on one's beliefs, experiences, and what they assign a certain meaning or definition to. So, perhaps in a way, nothing is real. But everything can be.

If I lost a civil war, my badge and the authority it proclaims is "real"- but only to those who believe it to be, and "fake" to those who don't. Seems 'existent' and 'non-existent' are better terms to debate. Just because something 'exists' doesn't mean it's recognized or legal. Back to subjectivity. Popular opinion. Mob rule. Etcetera.

How is there not? Your mind is not on the same level as a hypothetical omniscient being.

If there's two paths to take home and someone in traffic infrastructure knows there's going to be a construction project on the path you normally take, in this example, you could've chose to take the normal path, but due to circumstance unforeseen by you, why would you? Say for some reason he's also your insurance agent and knows your license or insurance lapsed and the other road is patrolled by cops often, whereas this road is normally absent of them. Perhaps he would know you'd still take the road undergoing construction. It can be as simple as knowing things you don't and how you respond to currently-unknown future circumstance and why.

Otherwise we're just charting into mysticism/divinity and determinism/fatalism territory. Which I can't see one subscribing to the latter without some form of the former. Save for circumstance/cause and effect, as in the examples given.

Edit: My argument is there's a difference between knowing the actions of men and "planning them", so to speak. A hypothetical God can know a certain road has gone without work for a time and people are speaking of fixing it and say there's a time frame when said work is usually done. Ergo, even a person who knows of all these things can "know" what your actions will be. Of course another argument would be seeing as God created the nature of all material including it's inevitable degradation over time it was "planned". If you want to look at it like that.

Well thankfully you don't have a third home to worry about otherwise you'd really be reeling. I'm sure you'll be fine.

No but really that's the thing. You got people living in uncivilized parts of the world who have little more than a large pile of mud and leaves to call home, who today probably witnessed one of their family fatally mauled by a tiger on the last hunt. Might take a while to believe or take seriously but you may stand to learn a few things from people like that.

We can never do what we weren't planned to do. — 8livesleft

This I'd so humbly argue is where I'd like you to consider you may be mistaken.

Everything is planned, predetermined. According to most religion God has a plan for each and everyone of our lives. And then came free will. We have freedom to ignore this plan, and live and do as we please. Granted, it doesn't necessitate this non-acceptance wasn't known long before it happened and all actions aren't known. It means we have the freedom to either accept or reject the plan for our life. Theo-philosophically speaking at least.

If I know a friend has an alcohol addiction, and I planned for him to become sober and improve his affairs, I could present every opportunity and yes even show him the most likely outcomes of either continuing or discontinuing his consumption, he still gets to make that choice and it is still his. So, if I offer him 5,000 dollars to either go to a nice rehab, and get his life on track, with the caveat that he can actually choose to spend it on whatever he wishes, I knew his choice, but it wasn't my plan. Makes sense somewhat eh?