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?

Other than what's best for bottom-line corporate profit margins, this was proven false by, as a most consequential example, Boeing’s decision to keep its ill-fated 737 Max planes flying, regardless of indicators, including employee warnings, they should be grounded and serious software glitches corrected. — FrankGSterleJr

That. Or is just goes to show myopic oversights and quick, no-holds-barred, bum-rushed gains don't always constitute "what's best for bottom-line corporate profit". Especially in the long run. Someone up the chain of command might have gotten lazy, greedy, complacent, or a little of all three. That's what happens when the person knows no matter what happens his golden parachute will open.

Doubt it, otherwise we'd all be living in fear, as what is (not asked to 'live in fear' but rather to possess knowledge or 'fear of God'). I look at it all as more of a test to see who takes care of the business when the boss ain't looking, hence the importance of 'faith' which by definition couldn't exist with proof. But that's tired reasoning at this point to a skeptic so I'll give it a shot.

Just imagine. The vastness of the universe. Trillions of light years of rock, void, and various gases. With radar we can see Alpha Centauri, over 25 trillion miles away. In fact we can detect systems even further, such as MACS0647-JD, being over 13 billion light years away. And still, no signs of intelligent life. But let's look a bit closer at our own solar system. Eight (or nine if you're old school) heavenly bodies perfectly suspended by just enough gravity to stay in sync without either drifting too close to the sun or too far away into the void of space. Something to marvel at in it's own respect. But let's look even closer, on our planet. Intelligent life, with no rival or anything that even comes close. Plants have been here since the beginning, with reptiles not being far behind. Only mammals possess some inkling or resemblance of intelligence, but is exponentially dwarfed with our modern marvels and society (such as they can bring or be at times). Why don't we have other species, mammals even with societies that remotely resemble ours? Not detectable billions of light years away, nor right here at home. If this isn't at least a starting point for the case of intelligent design, I frankly don't know what is!

You have to have suffering or pain or whatever it is for some gain. Again, just because that is the reality, doesn't mean it is then automatically a good thing. That is what I am trying to decouple from what seems to be your presumption there. — schopenhauer1

I guess you could play a video game with all items unlocked, infinite health, ammo, etc. and still find some entertainment value from just going around and following the storyline. But would you really? I wouldn't call existence good or bad in comparison to some unknown construct made up on the spot just for sake of debate, it's simply "what is". What is your ideal reality you describe like exactly? No pain? I wouldn't be able to tell if I'm carrying too much or exposed to too much heat until my arms snap or flesh singes? Or would that just not happen and we'd all be supermen. Or just magically healed shortly after? If we're all super than technically no one would be. What about becoming trapped somewhere? Can we teleport out? Boredom? We'd all just be insanely fascinated by the slightest thing like a drop of water dripping from a faucet or some inllectual way like how paint drying actually is pretty interesting scientifically? How would this work?

"You need to suffer to not be bored" — schopenhauer1

You need to be able to suffer or otherwise have the possibility of failure, misfortune, or loss to have any sense of passion or life of purpose. Naturally we all work to avoid these things but after accepting their inevitability we learn to cope with them better when they do arise.

Why is gambling, playing a video game, skydiving, or riding a roller coaster exciting and not boring? Because each has a danger, some minor, some major, that invigorates us and is a departure from the normal routine.

Yes, but if we cannot know it as an object, as Wayfarer avers, then we cannot ever know it in the sense that we know the objects we can talk about. — Janus

Do we really know the objects we do talk about? Sure, basic things like Laws of Motion, chemical reactions (at least, what substances do what when introduced to others), other forms of easily observable reality (which have been found out to be wrong constantly ie. geocentricism), but just look at the animal kingdom. Or less advanced forms of our own like babies. The peek-a-boo game. If you cover your hands in front of your face, to the baby, you completely disappeared off the face of the Earth. We live in a world of infinite possibility. Those who doubt it are clearly stuck in their ways and blinded by their own ingrained beliefs. It's just how the mind works. Anything that challenges your ingrained beliefs ie. your sense of identity/who you are or one's understanding of reality is instantly ridiculed/laughed off. Cognitive dissonance 101.

Your answer is suggestive of some mysterious 'other' form of existence; which we can never know. — Janus

Technically, if there is some other form of 'existence', which we, understandably if not narrowly assign the life we live as what encompasses and consists of it, it wouldn't be 'never'. Just not now.

The problem is how is there a conscious experience at all? — Marchesk

By simply asking the question you answer it. What are we even talking about? Do you know? What are the arguments, what are yours? I understand it's how not if (or is it?). Neurons, man. It's just happening. It's exact nature should not be pinpointed. Otherwise we'll inevitably have Terminator: Rise of the Machines. Makes sense don't you know?

In ancient Greek enlightenment many thought that there is only one absolute and it's ideal logic, therefore the one God must be the god of logic. — magritte

in Ancient Greece women were not used for sexual pleasure, only procreation. Therefore the only way to enlightenment must be illegal relations with younger citizens. I would've (and wanted to) phrase this one logical comparison more bluntly or vulgarly but decided not to.

You could solve the problem by killing anybody that disagrees with you. — Restitutor

You could. But that would never happen. Even dogs (I know I remember reading this though I struggle to remember exactly what the source was, nor do I really wish to know) together in a cage after seeing each killed in front of them will have a sense of time/consciousness (past, present, future) and become aware of what will likely happen to them next. Ergo, if I see that. I'll listen to you. I'll agree with you. I'll participate. I'll even try to gain rank or position. Just don't turn your back. They always do though. Eventually. :grin:

In my view, procreation that leads to a life of mostly suffering is wrong, and procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure is right. — Down The Rabbit Hole

How could you know? Sure there are indicators but that's all they are. An alleged well-off child could be born with a debilitating defect or have an accident that will be with them their entire life. An alleged poor or unfortunate child can end up being a genius or win the lottery or something. You never know. Just Google "rich people born poor", for a few examples. It's rare, no doubt. But it happens.

Furthermore, why is "procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure" right? Is there some religious basis for this? A "soul" being rewarded with the pleasures of this world? If not, many would liken all of us, rich or poor, to little more than slightly-advanced animals living a meaningless existence of chasing shiny objects.

Regardless, who are you to "gamble" with a life, be it divine or animalistic. Just someone who can- simply because you can at that moment. What meaning is there at all from that standpoint?

I guess what people need to ask themselves is would you rather feel something than nothing at all? Would you rather have loved and lost than to have never loved at all? It's a fair shake, really. :grin:

Anything else, contrary to what many think, and you even say "[something unpleasant] is easily forgotten until one actually endures it", being able to get everything you want when you want it without possibility of failure, is one of the worst hells that can be experienced. There's no thrills or excitement, no fear of death or injury or failure sure, which of course means, no passion. It would quickly become difficult to distinguish one's own existence from that of a vegetable growing in a garden.

The less people you tick off the safer you'll be generally. If you could live in or visit a city where everyone gets along, where you can safely walk the streets at night and one that's the opposite, where would you rather expend your time, effort, and money? Why would you risk you and your families safety when you can just go somewhere else? Think TripAdvisor reviews for cities and places. Not so farfetched. Google autocomplete "is it safe to visit..." the more that comes up the less encouraging the place is to visit as is the chance of it to continue to thrive.

I'm reminded of a blank slate. It can be inscribed with words or pictography of either stunning beauty or resounding degeneracy. Because something can be turned into a weapon or tool for evil is it so intrinsically?

"... like a brick. You can build a house or you can sink a dead body."
- Lady Gaga