Great. Until you get drunk and take your dog skateboarding while flying a kite playing loud music and get hit by an ambulance you couldn't hear and now not only you but everyone inside the ambulance dies. lol

I think it's wrong to quantify the values of human life. — Mac

Because you're (presumably) a decent person. Know nothing of you personally but you more than likely had a tolerable upbringing and currently have a tolerable existence. Who knows what you'd be like if neither were true.

Where there is death, I'd like there to be none, rather than less or some sick exchange of life. — Mac

Embracing perfectionism and idealism is a sure way to end up with neither.

I can't just propose we use those in the 1% that are concentrating my nation's wealth as test subjects because I feel they must pay for their negative impact. I personally think the 1% are worse criminals than most murderers, but I can't honestly say one is truly better than the other, or that we should use low-lifes for experimentation. — Mac

Bruh we all use their systems. You're using one if not many more simultaneously now. You don't know for sure (though I will admit it's probably not unlikely) that all or even any of them aren't decent people who perhaps know more than you or I. So the guy who revolutionized the world (arguably for the better or worse) by inventing the computer or the iPhone shouldn't be rewarded for their works proportionally yet you or I should simply because we're not of the highest class? Which is virtual life imprisonment btw and total removal from society. You can't really go anywhere or do anything. You'd get kidnapped, killed, tortured, or just constantly challenged by those with inferiority complexes.

Even if you're just a minor celebrity or local politician. You'll never know the true nature of people and experience the life that comes with it. Everyone will always either put on their best face because of what you have and can do or their worst because of what they don't and cannot. And no one will truly sympathize with someone who can afford mansions and decide laws that govern others because why should they? Shoot even I'm getting a little pissed thinking about someone doing either lol. Which is my point. You never know the thorns in someone's foot until you've walked in their shoes. Just some random food for thought on the interwebs I guess.

An inmate is already serving their time or will be put to death. Prison and lethal injection are torture enough I think. — Mac

There we go. Real talk.

As I'm sure would be asked, what are some examples? Emotions are something to factor in that hinder yet do not explicitly constitute what mental limits are. Or do they?

Are limits not meant to be broken or at least the reaching of them made tolerable?

Ideas, emotions, concepts? Opinions, views of things? Potential energy ie. a rock atop a hill?

Example I can visualize some insanely grotesque I dunno creature that's part Earth say like a rock wall of a cave that's alive, moist, and throbbing with a giant eyeball in the center of it. It doesn't "exist" really but it does in my mind. If I share the idea or imagery with another person does it exist more? If some scientist goes insane and somehow creates it physically in this world it does exist. What point between simply imagining something fictional for a split second and it manifesting in the real world does something cross between non-existence and existence? There has to be a transitional period that can at least be more easily rationalized over another as having qualities of none or qualities of both.

Come on @A Seagull, help me out lol.

I see you have no physical disabilities then and take mobility for granted. Arguably there is little that can be done to instill to you it's value.

Oh hush. If you had one that didn't render you completely unable to function and needed something another had that would die as a result of not your taking of it but presence, long story short the thing you needed would be taken and death would occur.

All the time!

The statement is proven accurate in a subjective way at least. In the 1600s "space travel is not possible" was a fact- subjectively. When it's dark where you're at saying "it's night" is true. Until it's not. There is more to it of course. Space travel was not objectively "impossible" at that time (someone could have in theory built a functional rocket ship if they knew how and had the materials) nor was it night halfway around the world.

Depends what aspect we're going for. Duality vs. non-duality comes to mind. There's reason never to become too accustomed or comfortable with things to the point of passivity. Complacency kills- and is the single greatest destroyer of not just lives and civilizations but worlds. Why is it so insidious? Because you intrinsically don't perceive it as a threat. It's what everyone works to gain. And no one fears to lose.

If that power is held what's stopping that from happening. Couldn't be more than ignorance or laziness. Self indulgence and realizing greatness really isn't a thing you do once and forget about resting on laurels for all time perhaps after deciding it's too much for you. But that's not the point.

If there's a problem find out why and where and solve that problem. You have to make that great again first or as some will say for the first time... surely we're not afraid of a selfless challenge that really isn't. Otherwise. In a word. Entropy. As shown.

What is there to figure out really? What is is. Until it changes. Then it's not. Then that is. Lol. Not too complicated really.

What I was going to say (love your name btw, not sure why but it brings me great joy whenever I see it) is to the casual onlooker it doesn't make a whole great deal of sense to say something can both exist and not exist. Something being hidden is one example but that is subjective or as some would say semantic. Essentially many would argue it has to be one or the other. Though I feel there are rationalizations that have weight beyond absolute subjectivism and semantics. Can't think of them now though. Perhaps you can?

Not at all. I'm saying we don't have to because it's already been done. Is it perfect? Not by far. Is it better than earlier systems factoring in the whole overpopulation thing? Absolutely and indisputably. It has mechanisms to correct itself when corruption rots and corrodes inner workings. Some of these are external of course.

To respond to the title, probably enough people asking if I strike you and you feel pain, and you would ask me or perhaps act in order for me to stop, why you think it would be okay to do it to someone else.

To the post, unless you live in Antarctica somehow or perhaps some isolated African jungle, it's called law and order and government. Already done lol.

Assuming the philosopher is employed as a philosopher say in a setting with other philosophers and the entrepreneur is stupidly wealthy... you can inverse the two and your post would still be correct.

If you ever wanted to pick a time in the past million years, now is good in terms of what we will make of ourselves. — apokrisis

Eh I'd wager they say that every millennia. :grin:

Well rest assured both religion, science, and history reach a single conclusion that cannot be avoided. The planet, society, or "the world" can end in a moment's notice. All three state this as fact. Religion via God, science via a multitude of ways (climate change, gamma ray bursts, death of the Sun, too many to name really), and history in obvious ways such as politics, war, invasion, plague, etc.

Probably seems more doom and gloom than I claim to try and be but, none of it's happened yet! One could even say it's unlikely. Point being it shouldn't be "this debate" that suddenly gives what was always possible a "zing", though it may bring things from the back of the burner for a few minutes. Be prepared. I guess enough to be confident you have no reason to live in fear (or to be fair less reason than the next guy) as a result. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. But you wouldn't be here if that was your style.

Not exactly my point and though I wouldn't say so it's not like I could or even would disprove it. I'd instead assert there is a unique quality about the human mind over self-awareness that is evidenced in animals. Usually lol.

It appears the human body and most animals require a brain (which generally requires a head) to function in an intelligent way. Interestingly enough cockroaches can live without a head for a week or more. Lizard tails wriggle for quite some time after detached but we wouldn't call this intelligence or awareness or consciousness or a mind rather just nerves and impulses. A starfish can regenerate it's entire body from a limb. My point is since humans cannot do any of these things, this places the human brain and so mind above others. For obvious reasons. That's why we're not being hunted by killer starfish or dolphins using infrared technology, for example.

Perhaps the only answer would be "nothing".

Best keep that under wraps though. I often wonder if the majority of the thinking world ever starts thinking "nothing exists" the entirety of the universe and all existence would just vanish into nothingness.

Reminds me of an old episode of "Tales from the Darkside" called "Effect and Cause".

Thoughts on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

If only it were just my own. You feed a cat or dog wet food they often won't easily go back to dry. Unless they're starving of course. Folks are the same way. And just like animals, they will fight and kill (or at least vote, heh) for whatever they perceive will ensure the continuance of life in the manner of which they've become accustomed. If I double your salary or income today, you would become accustomed to it. And if you found out there's something or someone that may force me to have to return it to what it was... you'd get to thinking. We'll leave it at that.

Sure, social animals cooperate with each other and don't go around murdering one another. They prey on smaller animals. Which is exactly my point. If the irrational (or even rational provided they convince themselves they'll have a guaranteed position of leadership) convince the rational (or anyone) to "follow their mindset/vision/belief" (religion) then those against it could become the minority and are now subject to predation. Fortunately these days that just means being outvoted. lol (usually)

Define "the mind". The brain does. We know that.

Say I need a cave to sleep in so I don't get soaked and can have a fire that lasts during a storm so I don't succumb to exposure or hypothermia.

My cave family or whatever have lived there for a generation or two now. We have very epic cave paintings we all enjoy on the walls.

If I don't "own it" what's to stop someone else or rather many persons from entering it and perhaps they don't quite know all we do about fires and dangerous plants or just otherwise bring some contagion in perhaps one we happen to be allergic to. Or decide to draw all over our epic cave paintings.

That'd be annoying if not fatal for one of us. What solutions would you propose that would be mutually-accepted? Again, if there's more people who want to do whatever they want in the cave we've lived in for generations, a "democratic" vote obviously screws me over.

Come up with an answer and please write it out before you unhide the following statement. No peeking.

So what protects us from the state? — NOS4A2

Sheer number. Free press. Open society. Gunzz. Though I'm hesitant to admit, instant online communication and sharing.

Probably the most important fact being at the end of the day public servicemen and women are just people too.

What are the differences and similarities between information and communication? Intent?

Dang. This is a neat topic.

Curious as to what both debaters think about the following statements.

As a child, pain is objectively bad. So is suffering, starvation, dehydration, neglect, abuse, etc. Any who disagree well I'm frankly curious. As I'm sure others would be. Basically why is what is bad for you, not bad for someone else? Because they're not you? Because they look different?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Excluding the obvious question of 'why are they the few'. Is the idea without value? If a town of 10,000, with 9,000 infected with some sort of lethal contagion with no cure but who don't think they are, not worth erm.. neutralizing to save the 1,000 who would have perished otherwise?

Curious. Thanks.

Information seems like it may or may not have any intrinsic value unless there is something to perceive or interpret it. DNA has information. Morse code has information. So does a text in a foreign language. But if we have no familiarity or understanding in how to interpret or process it, it's just a bunch of nonsense.

Information seems to have something in common with art that thing being it generally involves some conscious input. Back to perception. A bird (hopefully several) can crap on a windshield in a way that happens to resemble "2 + 2 = 4". It has no more or less information than if an esteemed math professor wrote it on a chalkboard.

Neat topic.

But why isn't there an update when a new shout is posted across the site that can be read by whoevers on wherever they're at? That's... whatever the opposite of something people want to participate in is.

Edit: Omg. Nvm.

Try reading it aloud or perhaps if it's just a casual copy of a book you own- consider highlighting or bookmarking pages that really speak to you.

Philosophy is.. complicated. Some say it's the pursuit of truth. Some say it's merely intellectual defense for views we have that may or may not be objective.

I think the problem would be if the teletransporter had a glitch and spat out two copies of you at once. Lol.

Now that's a debate.

Presumably the neurons in your brain are precisely configured ie. it's your exact "memory" or "consciousness" ... you literally enter it and exit it like walking through a door. You remember entering it and see you have now exited it.

Very metaphysical. What of the soul? Frightening to think about really. Best avoided imo.

There's a difference between teleporting an atom (or atoms) to another location and simply reproducing them in a new location. The former being something I don't believe science will ever be allowed to truly do, perhaps masking it as the former while it's truly the latter.

I guess I'd have to say you're probably better off not willingly allowing your body to be atomically disassembled. Call me crazy.

Just as it is to stop people from competing. Especially when money (resources) or women are involved. It's just human nature.

Two men work at a data processing firm. One makes his quotas and just kinda loafs around. The other goes above and beyond with his nose to the grind and makes every minute count. Who do you think would or should get promoted and how could that not potentially be the difference between the company reaching Fortune 500 status, ensuring all its employees are basically set for life and the company going bankrupt and having to lay off everyone?

If you had to have open heart surgery who would you want? The more experienced doctor or the less experienced one? Gotta throw 'em both into the gauntlet to find out who's best.

Fan of subjectivism, basically. A kind of moral solipsism, if you will.

I think contentness is a far more realistic goal in life than bliss, especially if you mean often or constant. Everything gets tiresome and vacuous after some time. Going by your premise, if you let it that is.

As to the metaphysics of suffering and why it's "allowed", well if you ask around here you'll get a familiar answer. Things just happen because they can. Which is not perfectly opposed to my own. A world without the possibility of suffering or misfortune is a world without risk which begets a world without passion, purpose, or excitement. Long story short you'd get sick of it. Which admittedly seems rather unlikely if one has been through much hardship. But you would. We suffer because we have the freedom and ability to make another suffer if we choose. It's whether we allow the suffering we experience brought on by another to infect us and allow it to spread like a cancer toward others out of anger, spite, or even simple indifference. This is what I believe a rational definition of "evil" could be defined as.

He takes nothing from the state and receives nothing from them. — Brett

Well considering all it did to ensure his residence and very existence and all it does toward his continued survival and security doing so when of sound mind and able body would be pretty egregious come to think of it. What are we going to do next? Start clapping and jumping up and down for joy when our 10 year olds don't piss all over the seat? It's an unfortunate fact that that part was actually worth mentioning. And it is. Again, unfortunately.

You think. Enough to share it. Therefore there is. For you at least.

Everything we call amazing today is because it was thought of as impossible at one point or otherwise embodies some sort of rarity. Otherwise it would have no value like a single blade of grass from your lawn or a drop of rain from the sky.

As was how we're communicating now. Precisely as the thought of what allows us to communicate now before it became reality.

nor his general thinking the ultimate Truth. — Xtrix

Do you feel it leads you toward it or away from it? Not much more you can ask for these days really.

And thanks to those who lived there now we can.

Not a necessity now sure, but there's something to be said about the life, society, and culture of a period that inspired the art, idea, or creation in the first place.

These days we just have things like "Duchamp's Urinal" and "Work No. 837". If that's fine then wonderful. But don't act like you didn't or don't appreciate what was. Rather how it came to be for our own use and vain enjoyment.

I only chose this avatar because I enjoy Hedy's imagery here. — Azimuth

Right. Fashion as dictated or defined rather by the society of that time.

"Reality" as we believe we know it, is dynamic, in constant fluctuation, and is therefore unknowable. Circumstance is what we often mistake it for. And in doing so, open ourselves to manipulation, bewilderment, and ridicule when changed.

How about just 50 then. Your avatar suggests there's something you value about that time.

Another reason could be as far as why entrepreneurship has declined in general... is that some believe something along the lines of "everything that can be invented already has" and the same with thoughts, words, concepts, and ideas.

I don't think there are many strip malls or plazas I could visit today that, assuming they keep everything in stock, wouldn't be able to keep me alive, happy, and then some for several lifetimes. Of course, for all we know they said the same thing 2,000 years ago...

Seems to be the future is technological innovation. Advancing medicine, computers, science, all that. Not so much neat trinkets or personal devices. Though it will produce plenty.

The idea of a philosopher using his knowledge and insight to "set up a company" and earn money in a way that becomes exponentially easier after the initial hard work up front is what we're talking about I gather.

Well aside from the fact that competition and variety for the consumer is needed to spur innovation and be a natural guard against price gouging, there's always gonna be hard or at least constant work to stay ahead or even afloat. It can be done. With patents. But unfortunately logic alone won't guarantee a successful and profitable business, especially in today's moneymaking fields of technology, science, medicine, defense, etc. You need technical "nitty gritty" knowledge as well. Gotta either learn it all yourself or find someone who does you can trust (which is the real challenge) and go from there.