There's a such thing as comfort in logic and reason ie. when the two go together, often with some form of morality- and there's inane adaptation to a mentality that is- at any given moment- outside of all three. So long as one is "on top" or otherwise "right" in ways of social or personal superiority. These individuals are fine, so long as they abide to the larger system, that encompasses and provides for higher reason and understanding irrespective of personal position. That said, if you're making references to the "comfort" that is found in religious philosophies, rather "holding the feet to the fire" to those who hold comfort, solace, or confidence in a position -any position- that either isn't or cannot be proven or disproven here and now... I fail to see the "big deal" so to speak. We debate with those whom we deem debatable.

If one can deal with what they dish out to others and expect them to deal with as normal, I suppose there's little to be concerned about. It's the circumstance that others who deal the brunt of what others deal, and the great circumstantial fortune (temporality) responsible for those being able to do as they do being removed or reversed is what most forget, and so seals the fate of those who do not repent. Which is how it always was. It's when those predetermined, insistent, or otherwise damned to do and suffer from a reversal. attempt to convince others whose fate is undetermined that doing so is "normal", "right", or otherwise "predetermined" in attempt to damn them as well, is when Others speak and act. This is 2020 in a nutshell.

Portions of the Old Testament, like those I quoted, are generally ignored by most religious figures today. — Ciceronianus the White

Technically, Christianity is about retiring the Old Testament and heh christening a new one. Kinda like "yeah it happened but we don't really do that so much now" .. take that how you please.

We need scientific thinking, not religion. — Athena

What a brilliant idea Athena .. maybe soon we'll be able to make bombs that can blow up entire continents instead of just regional areas. I mean, according to Darwinism if you're smaller or weaker or less intelligent than myself, I just about have a duty to consume, eat, kill, or otherwise "assert my superiority over you" and if I do so, that's just helping the human race. To not do so is to leave us all handicapped.

There's no reason you can't have both.

To be fair I can't think of a single religion that doesn't cast non-believers as something less than positive or equal. Otherwise, there's no reason to be in the religion. Non-Christians are "lost sinners", non-Muslims are "infidels", most others are "non-believers".

Suppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol.

Right. And all things being equal. Well, yeah. Must be doing something right, eh?

Well I mean... that's not as you wish it to be perceived I'm afraid. Musical artists are one out of not only thousands but millions even. Some succeed, and that success is based on something.

So, long story short the odds of rolling a single number 50 times in a row is less than not. We're hardly at odds here it would seem. What's your deal?

Anything could happen. You insist that out of 3 dice rolls, rolling the exact same number all three times is just as likely as any other scenario? So, rolling a die 50 times and getting the same number all 50 times- in a row- is just as likely as not? How come it never happens then.

I see...

It just seems curious to me, and I'm sure to some others. By the nature of randomness and chance, in an equal and balanced scenario ie. a six-sided die each side has an equal chance of being rolled, approximately 16%.

Therefore, one could assume, rolling the same number twice in a row is less likely than rolling two different numbers. Much as it would be rolling the same number three times in a row. Each same roll in a row being less and less likely.

To put it another way, if you were forced to make a bet of three scenarios involving a die rolled three times. Which would you choose? A.) Each roll would be different. B.) Two rolls in a row would be the same. C.) All three rolls would be the same.

It's a curious mental phenomenon/falsehood that I'm sure entangles many. It does for me at least.

"In a competitive workforce, when men go from striving to be the best versions of themselves they can be to being the worst and sabotaging his fellow man to get ahead, even at expense to the organization, and calling this normal, you know something has gone wrong."

And I'm not even for that kind of change. Simply, one would be foolish to think a man-made system is without its flaws and inherent dangers or shortcomings. No problem is without a solution. Question is, will we find it?

I've just had an aha moment! Suppose you're rolling a six-sided die. There are six possibilities: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The probability that you'll roll a number greater than 6 is zero i.e. no matter how many times you cast this die, you'll never get a 7 or higher number. And on every roll of this die, you'll always get a number between 1 and 6 inclusive. It appears that I'm wrong. :chin: — TheMadFool

Well now that that's cleared up... :grin:

Whatever number you roll is now less likely to be rolled again right after. Or is it?

Say after a dozen or so rolls there's only 1 side (number) that hasn't been rolled. The odds of you rolling that number next must be very high. Or isn't it?

Why or why not.

For example, we can know if someone used a gun to kill someone, but how well do we know the person and that person's experience leading up to what happened that led to the killing? How much do we know about life that gives us the ability to judge others, even complete strangers from totally different backgrounds? Please consider do we have the knowledge and wisdom to judge each other? — Athena

That's what's attempted to be found out in an open and public court of law with evidence, details about the persons life, character testimony, witnesses, and allegedly a judge who is mature and very well versed in life and its many ups and downs who knows the law and rights extensively.

I guess the question would be, if someone kills someone close to you in cold blood for no reason, would you be OK with them walking away unpunished, perhaps to do it again and victimize more innocent persons or families? People will still take justice into their own hands. Do you see any reason for justice to be administered on the street by a mob who can't think for themselves and act on emotion and whatever public opinion happens to be most prevalent or would you rather it be in a professional court setting with a man who's job is to be impartial and everything and anything is recorded and able to be verified and or discussed?

Sure, and pleasure or satisfaction from a dream is still as it seems. But it wasn't real. Was it?

But is it? You've never had a dream where you felt extreme shock or pain essentially? Being asleep, how could you know there was a real physical pain responsible?

I would have to say that his point is best captured by his first sentence. That the other person is wrong. Lol.

Now to examine both statements and provide commentary on each including the individual perspective of both is another matter. Which I will attempt to do shortly. First we have to define what each concept (concepts that have been debated for millennia) "means" or rather what each party determines them to mean, respectively.

Strawson's view, as Dennett points out as inconsistent with his own, determines perceiving everything perceived or able to be perceived is consciousness. Which generally makes sense. You're reading this post from myself, and I've read and am now replying to a post from the OP. Hard to argue with that.

However, Dennett, from my interpretation, seems to hint that all that glitters is not gold, in a sense. Rather, we breathe depth and life into things that inherently don't have either. My best understanding of being "directly acquainted" with "fundamental properties" works out to a sort of "innate intelligence" which in my attempts to avoid the spiritual or metaphysical would be something along the lines of something inherently inside us all that differentiates our interactions with one another from the interactions of natural forces or elements ie. magnets, gravity, combustibility, cellular functions, etc. Which is technically by all available information just as plausible.

We interact positively with someone who we like or makes us feel good or at least doesn't possess any of the opposite traits or qualities, we interact poorly with those who do. So do animals. And beyond that so do the cells in both humans and animals with other cells. Where does one draw the line? Sure, we can create fancy machines and eloquent conversation with those we get along with or understand, but translating all that to a scenario where each of us are just tiny one-celled organisms or cells in a larger structure, are the things and actions they're responsible for not as remarkable as our own?

Anything can happen in life, that's why it's not Hell.

Remember this and you'll be fine. Or as some would say, do with this as you please.

as to whether the narrative seems convincing — Enrique

In a word, yes. Very well written. Can honestly say I feel I've gained 10 IQ points just reading it.

Synesthesias materialized in the human brain which integrated modules responsible for syntax with those involved in dimensional perception. — Enrique

Bearing in mind I had to Google at least 2 words in your OP, could you explain this in a bit more detail? Examples, etc. I get the idea, heh I think :smile: , but essentially this stands above what animals can do, ie. birds recognizing themselves in the mirror, pigs being able to solve puzzles, whatever monkeys can do, etc?

Also, genuinely curious I apologize if this sounds facetious but going by what I've read, does this mean all animals have the potential to become "human-like" or on par with us given enough time ie. becoming upright, using tools, their brain developing, etc. in your opinion? Thanks

Also curious as to what more advanced members here that are more your speed have to say?

So you feel it is frustrating to you for others to strive to be as strong as possible. — kudos

Not at all. Did I say that? I must've implied it. My mistake. We all have our triggers. Though I believe I pretty much if not explicitly said it's smarter to train physical strength (be strong) than to not (be).

Why is that, do you think it is an overall bad trait? — kudos

Naturally as a self-proclaimed philosopher I believe mental fortitude can topple brute strength on occasion. Call me a pen mightier than the sword kind of guy if you must. Both are needed really. I suppose seeing as physical strength or power is something largely out of one's control those who rely heavily on something that's a "given" or otherwise easily obtained or done as the entirety of their essence or who they are not only miss out on the more refined things in life but can sometimes dull or handicap the lives of others. Curse of empathy, what can I say.

Just bad for some and not for others? — kudos

Well, sure. It's not the object or essence it's what it's used for or why you seek it.

Would you vote for a political leader who had this type of drive? — kudos

Again, it's the intent behind the motive. To quote someone I'm not sure whether or not I admire, leaders are dealers in hope. Peace through strength is a mighty fine slogan and philosophy. Now, how this peace and strength is obtained and maintained I think is the question.

Edit: Nevermind. My hobbies include perusing the internet and on occasion having a few beers. Seriously though someone can prove something along the lines of whatever. Look it up!

In that sense? No. I cannot recall- nor would I like to- a time where humans preyed on each other regularly for direct sustenance- in terms of literally eating one another. As far as conquering land and peoples for resources or servitude, yes but even that doesn't mesh with the reasoning in your OP. Animals don't enslave other animals, they eat them- or at the greatest congruence to humans, chase them out of former territory.

Humanity however is a bit different. When most people think of the word 'weak' they think of lacking physical strength. Seldom does mental ability come to mind. And sure, living as cave peoples someone bigger than yourself makes you for all intents and purposes- weak. As in your power and potential over theirs is far lesser. At least in comparison. But- if you were to say utilize something as simple as a lever and wield something as simple as a slingshot for example, that advantage in strength and size the other person has over you is negated. Or at least, the two are drawn much closer together. Sure, greater physical strength and size will always translate to greater power in terms of analog devices and tools but it becomes less of an inherent necessity.

If you're from one group who is being invaded by a much larger group, with few numbers left on your own- and you manage to study natural elements and determine which are poisonous- you can use stealth to say "spike" the enemy camps water supply and become victorious by the next morning. Just one of many examples.

Say you're in a primitive jungle and you come across someone much larger than you. If you can either get them to chase after you or perhaps chastise them if they don't at first, you could lure them to say a pitfall trap with sharpened spikes. Or just in general take someone much stronger than you. If that person is vulnerable to name-calling, insults, and other forms of mental sabotage and you happen not to be, well, you have the upper hand in most things save for a direct conflict of course. And even so, anger or rage especially can lead to mistakes and oversight.

To answer the question, assuming we're using weakness and strength properly and not completely focused on the physical... generally probably not but I'm sure there are some exceptions. I'm trying to think of a more eloquent way to phrase it other than "don't be like that guy" in terms of motivation to become the strongest you can be, especially if you witness reasons or events where it would've come in handy. Besides, many people and I would hope most train physical strength because they know it's smarter than to not and perhaps even to do good things, but those who don't and do so just for vanity or rather to try and address a deep-rooted personal insecurity or inferiority complex... would probably feel better about themselves after coming across someone less gifted or otherwise "weaker". I suppose there's that.

You bring up a good point. Sort of. The reason why conspiracies against groups of people, especially smaller groups who by comparison have less defense due to numbers is so dangerous, is fairly obvious. Paranoia or even suspicion is hardwired into the human brain through years of early survival. You're in the woods and you hear a twig break or something else that just makes you feel off occurs, you pay attention and respond to it, you may just save your life. That fact is what I hold my belief of where paranoid-class complexes or ailments come from. You're in a group of a few hundred people who everyone more or less knows each other and you happen to have over a few dozen new people over- and something odd occurs. As someone in the larger group who everyone you know or someone you know knows, and if this smaller group likes to maintain their own traditions which naturally involves some level of privacy, or as some would cast secrecy, your mind will naturally assume it to be the unknown vs. the known A sort of failed attempt at "when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains must be the culprit" per folly of human psyche. In a strange way we can be as trusting as we are suspicious. Your brain is uncomfortable if it can't find a solution to something and so will conform to what has worked in the past or makes sense based on belief or upbringing, hence optical illusions, cognitive dissonance, pareidolia, suspicions, witch hunts, etc. Long story short that can lead to innocent people getting hurt.

On the other hand though the general term 'conspiracy theory' where it doesn't have to do with people (ie. aliens or government coverups) can be used, rather the facts from the first paragraph can be used, as they are very real and understandable, to hide other things. Which is worth noting.

Anything is whatever anyone wants it to be. Especially if money and power are involved or rather can be.

However, perhaps a way of questioning and evaluating all the ethical systems of the past — Jack Cummins

What are your suggestions?

a world that is in falling apart. — Jack Cummins

There's hardly any event, scenario, or circumstance happening now that hasn't occurred before. Especially severity. We're just more connected and aware of eachother now. I mean, could be. Who knows

You can have a principle defined on whatever you wish. But it's up to you to stick to it, you follow it because you allege it to be important, but without a repercussion for not following it, said principle could quickly lose the value it once had if times ever get tough.

As an example, it makes rational sense to avoid striking or harming someone from another group, due to them finding out and/or retaliating. But any and all strict reason not to do so disappears if you determine for yourself you could "get away with it" undetected. It's a form of "absolute accountability", justice is I mean. Right gets rewarded and wrong gets punished. Nothing wrong with that. Especially today.

Another way to phrase it is, people believe you need justice and/or law and order ie. belief in very real consequences for one's harmful actions to avoid harm that is not conducive to a diverse and free society. And is it not?

Why do lesser people have such an effect on something as personal as your own self worth or composure? To put it another way, how can you declare someone and what they have to say as 'lesser' if they make you think or doubt?

Your question seems to have very little to with morality that isn't of your own consequence.

You can't strictly follow nothing without following something, even if that something is to strictly follow nothing. Interesting I suppose.

Religion = way of life. Doctrine = prescribed information. So, eh, not you as I don't know you but the kind of folk who speak in the same way kind of remind me of this.



Interestingly enough, those who seek to avoid what they deem as forms of control, are more.. uniform then those who don't.

About? Not necessarily About defining limits or extremes both desired and undesired? Precisely.

If I, as someone smaller than you, approached you with a knife and said I was going to slash your throat and tried to. Would you stop me? Why or why not? You have your answer there.

which hasn't been observed. — TheMadFool

Honestly I'd consider a bet where if anyone who reads this or ever will who has actually met/known/or seen a conjoined twin in person wins/loses $100. For each. It's beyond rare. That's not really a standard for assumption.

Conjoined twins share the same universe in terms of ideas and the physical environment. — TheMadFool

How is that different from siblings in strict, if not unrealistic (yet plausible) environments?

Were it true that the brain experiences something like the snowball effect — TheMadFool

I'm confused here. There is no observable experience or phenomenon in human existence that doesn't involve.. the human brain. I mean. It's not some non-existent term I made up based on nothing.

Au contraire, there are more similarities between minds of different people than there are dissimilarities. Explain that. — TheMadFool

It's not that bizarre really. Say a few people share a dorm room with the same computer ie. operating system. It's the same base when opened fresh out of the box. Yet, through time, each becomes customized based on the preferences of the individual.

Snowball effect. They can be tiny yet turn into something huge. Say they play a game or challenge where there are two choices, say right or left. One chooses one, the other chooses the other. One is seen as the winner, the other a fool. Or wrong, at least. Again, that could snowball.

If there was a first only, and five others for goodness sake, and life not only went on but continued (and even if you say we weren't here, that's even more toward my point) and got better. I'm not sure what the huge deal is really.

because they're stuck to each other, share the same experiences — TheMadFool

Not really. Some favor the left side of their body, others favor the right side of their body. Also, perhaps one has a tiny defect or something. The responsible party is likely to treat one differently over the other, whether for better out of sympathy or worse out of.. who knows what. Maybe the responsible party is either biologically detrimented (poor hearing) or socially disciplined (stricter parent happened to be sitting on one side of the table) to respond differently depending on what side of the head the person hears what from more strongly.

There's an infinite list of scenarios where one twin on one side has slightly different experiences than the other.

That. Or just don't be a needy, arrogant, money grubbing arse. And, when you can, do what's right even when it's not "cool" or beneficial to you. Not hard, really.

Of course, as you mean in the contexts of a romantic pursuit. The person, mentally, is either a child or an adult. Age somewhat hints at one or the other but definitely defines nothing. That's what people forget. You either teach someone who's willing, which you can help a juvenile mind steer toward, or you speak to them in their language so long as you don't get surprised when a child acts like a child. Beyond that, common interests and a palatable persona usually prevail.

(so every idea of life after death share an equality in that they are all bullshit...) — Mayor of Simpleton

You contradict yourself. First you say "with a notion of certainty", as opposed to just a plausible theory, like alternate universes. Now, suddenly and somehow, you attempt to cast any theories of a field you've clearly made up your mind on as "bollocks", to be polite.

So seeing as, by your own standards, any theory about an afterlife is nonsensical and to be dismissed, does that not include your own statement? Schrodinger's Cat. It's as alive as it is dead. Until?

but where will they migrate to? Where will they get their food? — Punshhh

Internally? As citizens of whatever nation, assuming it still stands and isn't under some state of emergency or martial law, wherever they damn well please/can afford. What do you think FEMA is for. Assuming we're not talking about the wealthy (who are fine), the average folk will get their food where they always got it from. The wages of honest work. And with any luck, they'll do exceedingly well.

Oh, you mean in some crazy "national collapse" where assumingly the armed forces are rendered nil or otherwise occupied. Unlikely. But in that case, it might get pretty crazy. Again, unlikely.

locked up forever in the psychological little world you created yourself, without even a little window to peek outside — bcccampello

If one is psychological, are they mentally sound and responsible for their actions? If one creates a world for themselves, assumingly of their own free will and desire, what reason would one have to seek elsewhere? Curiosity, perhaps as a result of boredom? Perhaps. I'm reminded of the old adage, as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's hell is surely another man's heaven.

Simply existing [...] is enough for me. — TiredThinker

Selfishness is the common element present in the course of every evil act ever perpetrated against mankind.

Is there anyway that every idea of life after death can be correct? — TiredThinker

Essentially, no. Not simultaneously at least. For obvious reasons.

Someone bluffs you and tries to make your citizens scared you have little choice but to do the same. It's an unfortunate level we've reached in history (though I suppose it's really nothing new) but you know you work with what you're given.

If a threat of violence wasn't an effective means of deterrence it wouldn't be a legal form of assault. The crazy part is WWIII was almost started by accident. Some space junk or even a technical malfunction (which you have to understand is what an adversary would try to say in attempts to stall a response) occurs and people die.. things can get real all too quickly. It's actually all very horrifying come to think of it.

Denuclearize the world!

Edit: It reminds me of an old episode I once saw.. would really appreciate it if someone who knows what I'm talking about would call it out.. I don't think it's Twilight Zone it seems more "Outer Limits" but it easily could've been a movie.. long story short it's in space and leaders of Earth are in a space craft talking (they sometimes refuse to communicate) with a race of aliens and I forget what leads up to it (if the episode or show doesn't start post-conflict) but long story short the human force allegedly blew up an alien populace and their army threatens to blow up Earth and I *think* it was an accident or something other than an intentional act of bloodshed but long story short the aliens demand the leader of the force to be killed to avoid a war- and the human side knows it wasn't on purpose so doesn't want to go along with it.. there's a countdown or something.. forget what happens but it was very dramatic and frankly quite entertaining. Basically something like that could probably happen lol.