Great video I enjoyed watching a while back. Entertaining, informative, and brings up a few points worthy of discussion.


https://youtu.be/bHw4MMEnmpc

Whoops. Forgot to mention the secondary words must sound identical to the base word when pronounced together and must be used sequentially one after the other, together! @Amity gets it.

Kind of a dumb game I guess. But hey $50. :D

If you could live without both, which would you prefer?

Until thy work is done. :D

Not sure but wouldn't this have just been a "9, 7, 8, etc." countdown at best with a maximum of 8 contributions? Suppose technically we could've used non-standard numbering ie. numbers from different cultures.

What is the other possibility aside from coincidence? Reminds me of the Global Consciousness Project.

If you heard about a certain thing that means its garnishing widespread interest. If you thought about a certain thing its likely something influenced or led you down that path and so may have did so to others.

Well relying solely on the notion of biology it would be little more than glorified pleasure chasing robed in psuedo-intellectual grandeur. A glorified dopamine addiction. We feel good when we eat, best others, socialize and then some. Naturally I'd hope and do believe there is much more to it. In humans at least.

Well, a qualified mental health professional if nobody else. :D

I don't get it. Don't get me wrong as analytical as I try to be things can and do go over my head, especially here. This isn't one of those secret society doublespeak things were somebody says "I'm (something)" and the person is supposed to think about it later and feel mocked is it?

Let's address the semantics first. 'Mine' is a linguistically relative term. Your arm is your arm and my arm is my arm both of which can be referred to as 'mine' by either of us, respectively.

Now, depending on belief, assuming you are you and someone else is someone else. The perspective or experiences of another could share many similarities to your own. Say if you were raised in an orphanage or you lost a parent at a young age, someone else who also went through this has "your" perspective or experience and you have "theirs" in the general context of this event. Aside from the fact its virtually impossible between exact circumstance, place, society, or genetics you literally went through the absolute same experience and thus have the same perspective, yours would be yours and theirs would be theirs.

Probably just having a bad day? :/

Alcohol or something?

As a theologist many religions do allude to the idea this is either a 'fallen world' or that 'existence is suffering'. Question is. Are you not suppose to rise above it and not succumb to it? What is more important. What the situation does to the man or what the man does to the situation?

Who can help biology sustain itself the most. So, scientific innovation?

Not everyone has the scientific gene in them so the speak.

But did they not? Nothing relinquishes ones ego than being cripplingly ill next to another on the doorsteps of the Great Equalizer that is death. We all eat at McDonalds. Or come together either to get more oil or save the environment.

So that takes us up from 50% to 75%? Was there not already a 100% chance of this with only X? Or perhaps that's your point. Hm.

Well a perception is an observation, inaccurate or not, false witness aside, it is real. Whereas a hallucination... well. Huh. Neat topic to say the least.

How would you differentiate a perception from a hallucination? There seems to be the idea that a perception is a possibly inaccurate or incomplete observation of something actually present vs. something that was not. Of course... wow what a paradox. :D

I guess I'd want to say the normal biological state is to not be hallucinating. So based on that the odds of several people doing so simaltaneously at the same time and place, absent of a hallucinogen, decrease with number.

So what is the remaining 75%?

But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? I could be young and never question anything with my deepest thoughts being little more than I'm alive, bored, five feet and however many inches, and I want to make lots of money to get booze and chicks. No?

Building on your statement of conciousness being a cornerstone, what is your (or anyones) thoughts on saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed?

Edit: Actually when you consider the word having more than one definition or 'state' you're exactly right. Ones way of thinking or consciousness is indeed "ones philosophy". You get where I was coming from though. :D

Let's start with what isn't philosophy. Explicit math, scientific or otherwise codified law to name a few.

Perhaps philosophy is what happens when unbridled imagination meets logic and the two are forced to dance together side by side in perfect harmony as equals. Come to think of it, thats my second quote. I demand to be remembered by this as well.

Same as an unloving one you could assume.

Per doctrine, doubt it's something that could ever be adequately understood.

Always existed. As far as time and space of the universe goes. Always will. Though, and for reasons I'll explain, one could find themselves not able to so easily write off the possibility of choosing to forget, at least for a time. Eternal conciousness may seem difficult to grasp but force yourself to sit through a day long political commentary and you may find the concept is not so esoteric. :D

Per doctrine, God experienced regret, satisfaction ('it was good'), anger, and other human emotions. Just some food for thought for those interested or open to the doctrine.

Human conciousness vs. animal conciousness.

Allegedly, the following is true. Elephants mourn their dead. Caged dogs about to be slaughtered that witness an example of it will be fearful. Cats... let's face it they know what's going on. :D

Birds and pigs have shown signs of intelligence by being able to solve puzzles.

Per theory of evolution it just did as brain function increased. You just realized you were there one day.

I want to say it has to do with memories. Knowledge of time and the concepts of past, present, and future. Would an animal draw something in the sand of a past companion? Would it store something it needs for later and come back to it at a later date based on if it knows it either can or cannot get more of whatever it is? Now that one is easy to refute as squirrels store nuts and other examples. One might propose a combination of Darwinism and genetic memory. Or monkey see, monkey do. Say you have a group of squirrels. A few eat their nuts right away and a few eat what they need and hide the rest somewhere. Over time the ones that eat their nuts right away and follow this example become less common, while the ones that hide theirs and that follow this example increase until you're at the point every squirrel is doing this and 'showing' others to. According to some theories this act may become genetic memory.

Story of Cronus comes to mind. Or, iRobot. You can either control your creation or it will inevitably control you.

Beyond that depends how dystopian you want to get. Futuristic, sorry. Has eating or shopping for groceries been confined to the history books? Food being materialized onto a plate/into our stomachs? Do we even bother to think anymore?

A theory of mine, though its undoubtedly been conceived of before, is one day technology, rather capability will become so prevalent that safety won't be able to catch up. People can already hack smartcars disabling brakes and messing with the steering. Pacemakers too. Orwellian inventions like 4K spy cameras that are indistinguishable from a tiny house fly will become so affordable and widespread that privacy will become a thing of the past and people will demand governments do something. World governments will shroud every continent (with the exception of government buildings and military installations) with a kind of EMP field that will disable most electronics not approved or registered or otherwise 'wired'. Then maybe society will be forced to reconnect with its roots and get back to farming and perhaps have the desire to read a book every so often and after a few generations of returning back to normal all knowledge of such a nightmare will be purged from every book and form of media, absolutely forbidden to be spoken of ever again. Some radical theorists have gone as far to say- something like this has already happened. ;)

Something I once read I got a chuckle out of. Perhaps... those with knowledge of the before times left a little piece of it behind, either unintentionally or not. A little warning for us all as to what could happen. Ever get in trouble with the law in the United States? You got a letter in the mail regarding it. Where was it from again? That's right .. The Circuit Court. XD

This excludes unintentional fallacies then? How so? Assuming somehow I know for an absolute fact there is an afterlife and say 'there isn't' and someone takes each day much more seriously enriching themselves and their community as a result, is this still harmful?

What couldn't this mean. Right could mean moral thus opening a neverending discussion on ethics. It could mean solving a question or demystifying an idea or concept to the fullest understanding and completeness of the one who asked or wondered. On that note it could allude to "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" and simply be a reminder what works for a certain instance at a certain period of time may only do exactly that.

Could be an acknowledgement of subjectivism ie. you ask a novice student on his first day what the answer to an immensely complex equation is and he says "I don't know" being correct.

I'd double down on the idea it's to second guess oneself, actually. 'Reality' is always changing in the sense that hundreds of years ago humans could neither fly nor breathe underwater. Now, thanks to aircraft and scuba gear, they can. In a sense at least. Promotion of keeping an open mind, especially when one may think they are at the pinnacle of all that is or can be known.

Ask yourself this. What would be more ethical for humans? Living in a civilized society or living as animals do? Following the mentioned premise of biologic equality would it not be more ethical to (painlessly) kill and eat an animal then to allow it to continue living in an unethical setting to be either preyed upon and mercilessly devoured alive or succumb to disease that cannot be treated?

I'm being a tad tongue-in-cheek as far as this next argument but that is not to say it (intentionally) has no philosophic value, if not just for the sake of debate. How do we know plants and the like don't feel pain? Because it cannot be observed by our primitive senses or measured by a field constantly being proved wrong? Because they have no pain receptors or 'brain' that conforms to our feeble understanding of our own? Let's think about it. Plants have been around tremendously longer than the first human. They have quite the headstart so to speak. Studies show plants can not only communicate with eachother but respond differently to music, rock vs. classical for example. The Venus flytrap can somehow keep count of how many times its been touched and therefore when to react and many plants can successfully navigate through a maze in pitch black darkness. 'The Happening' proposes the concept. Or take 'Life After Humans'. Scientists say plants would inevitably overtake cities if not kept at bay and with enough time, and of course other natural processes, would be like they never existed. If all humans disappeared right now. Plants would not only be fine but dominate. If all plants disappeared right now, animals would die, the food chain would collapse, and one could assume so would humanity.

As far as the things I've mentioned plants can 'do' they can, and admittedly probably are, just basic cellular functions and reactions to stimuli. Suppose I was just looking to plug an episode of a show I like that proposes the concept. For entertainment/humor (or perhaps even some deeper thought on the subject, though unlikely) of the community. "Tales from the Darkside - Love Hungry". Sometimes I take the devil's advocate thing a little too far. I'll stop. :)

Let's group together traditional medicinal drugs prescribed by an authorized health professional to help with an ailment and recreational drugs taken primarily for pleasure for a moment.

These are simply substances. They just exist. Unless in their existence they cause some sort of detriment to their surroundings, I would say not. Now as far as ingesting them or introducing them into your body. That depends.

Say you taken an aspirin for a headache and it fulfills it's intended purpose wonderfully. One would call this good. Now say you mix it with alcohol and you end up vomiting and damaging your stomach. Not so much right?

If a drug fulfills it's intended purpose without introducing either short or longterm adverse health or other effects few would say this is not good. That said few would argue that dependency or addiction is bad and depending on the substance the risk of this may be significantly high.

For example I know of a few people who have overdosed from drugs. Some fatally some not. These were mostly recreational. If the intent was to reduce emotional pain in general if the person overdosed and they have loved ones who in turn grieve the intended purpose was not fulfilled and so is bad. Take fentanyl for example. I know someone going through chemo who says it makes him feel great. Because the appropriate dose was prescribed and followed. He knows someone who also took fentanyl, perhaps incorrectly, and is no longer alive.

Beyond all that say you have a business to run and not just your livelihood but those of your employees as well that depend on it. Say you start getting high all day and fall behind, later going bankrupt. This would be bad.

In a sentence I'd say it depends if it fulfills it's intended purpose without adverse longterm effects ie. if you do not become dependent, addicted, damaged physically or mentally, or use it as a crutch.

It's like water. It can quench a thirst or it could drown you.

Unless those big, bad black holes aren't so ominous after all.

One theory goes "what is a black hole in this universe sucking matter in, is a white hole in another universe spitting matter out". Just a theory of course. :D

Theoretically, that could mean everything needed to produce or sustain life would be present. Suppose you'd have to subscribe to multiverse theory though.

Probable odds. People don't like having their beliefs questioned. Then or now.

As for the staple phrase and resulting paradox. Perhaps it was esoteric in nature. Could have just been a motto to encourage others to be more open minded. Or one could argue that one assertion was excluded from the premise ie. "I know nothing other than that I know nothing (aside from this fact)."

Depends. Is this matter of any relevance or importance to us?

Assuming it is and we are one of the relevant parties or stakeholders. Is what could be lost worth what could be gained? How sure are the chances of both? Or that we even understand the matter in full detail?

A gun meaning a firearm. A rational, moderate would assume one small enough to be carried by an individual. So. A handheld instrument capable of firing one or more projectiles by means of kinetic energy igniting an explosive charge that propels the projectile forward where the projectile's main ability to create damage is either kinetic or of its velocity. So, a mortar launcher or an RPG would not be a firearm. Though, you could argue at the time of its (the Constitution's) conception the definition of a firearm would not encompass anything beyond a single-shot muzzleloaded black powder rifle. However the largely held idea of this amendment was for law-abiding citizens to be able to resist and even overthrow a tyrannical government if one would ever arise, so one could argue the rational 'definition' of what a civilian-legal firearm is ie. its capability or lethality would increase as weapons evolve. Maybe one day Star Trek like laser guns will be widely available for pennies on the dollar at any pawn shop or sporting goods store and render my earlier definition defunct.

Should any citizen be able to own nuclear bombs, fighter jets with live warheads, and weapons of mass destruction just because the government has them on the premise of being able to resist in case of tyranny? Would you be alright with your neighbor flying a drone with a bomb over your house just to test it? Absolutely not. A good question would be were citizens at that time allowed to own cannons or the same weapons used by the government? Either way there were nowhere near capable of reaching the capability of casualties that weapons of today have.

Before I get to the keep vs. own argument. More importantly than the fact the firearms of yesteryear were less advanced is the fact the society at that time was not. People were rational thinkers. There were state churches. The devout (be it moral or otherwise) were often wealthy and respected and the degenerates were kept poor and uneducated. The morally undesirable were often run out of town or at least ostracized. Today it is often the exact opposite. They own mansions, are wealthy beyond belief, and may have millions of supporters who idolize them and fawn over their every action. While some philosophers may struggle to even get by. It was a different world.

My view is the right to bear arms is the ability to possess a firearm capable of protecting you, your family, and property and the definition of what that firearm means scales up with said assets to protect. You own an average house in the city, you don't need an M60. You own a large farm in the middle of a rural area, that may vary. An 18 year old with a rap sheet doesn't need an Uzi. A middle aged man in charge of a Fortune 500 company might. There's the old tongue-in-cheek argument. If you don't want people to kill other people why don't you just make murder illegal. Essentially that means criminals will still break the law and possess firearms, while law-abiding citizens will essentially be left defenseless.

As to keep vs. own maybe there is a difference. For the sake of argument say if I see you misuse something I own and say for you to 'keep it'. Do I want it back? Is it not yours for all intents and purposes?

What I meant to suggest, and solely for the sake of argument, was as relateable as Jesus was, it may have just been an exclamation.

If you and I are standing in line at the grocery store and you reach into my cart and rip open a package of turnips and call yourself 'the turnip man' I or another might have said '(oh) my God, what is wrong with you?!', for example. The exclamation is toward you but of no descriptive quality.

What would you say to this. A major religious institute dictates the following as far as discussing philosophy.

"A collective of higher Learning and Thought, being necessary for the advancement of civilized society and reduction of human suffering, the right of the students to discuss Philosophy, shall not be infringed."

Not everyone is going to come up with some groundbreaking new philosophical idea that propels their society into the future and ends all suffering, but they have a right to try. Or perhaps contribute unintentionally.

A logical argument I heard was it is much harder to invade or overthrow a nation state when all its citizens are armed and content with the society enough to defend it. Some would go further and say "there is a gun behind every blade of grass" or even "the entire United States civilian populace is a standing army of 300 million."

That said, when a word is Capitlized liked 'arms' are in this case there is usually some defined meaning to it. Like in contracts for example. A surface-to-air missile system in your backyard would probably not apply for example.

No you cannot just shoot people as this is against not just an amendment but the Constitution itself, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. If you do so intentionally you would probably get charged with murder. If you and your friends happen to be drunk and camping, shooting off guns and someone in the distance is fatally struck you would probably get charged with manslaughter and improper handling/misuse of a firearm and maybe even lose the right to have one.

An important thing to realize about all of this is that the Constitution is a 'living document' meaning it has and is supposed to be changed as society does. Often some in the majority get overly comfortable in this fact and some even believe it only applies to them. This is not true. A Chinese-American, or several million have as much right to utilize the democratic process to add, remove, or omit any or all amendments, provided they are not acting under the auspices of a foreign government, as any American. It is essentially civilized and well-regulated mob rule and if this voting majority ever changes either in belief or some other way, so would the laws governing the land.

Ah, mysticism. Where to begin. Suppose I'd start by telling a bit about my own beliefs then continue to my understanding of the concept more broadly. As a religious person (biased I know) you tend to believe in either a 'God' or 'Power' that can influence the world we live in either drastically or minutely either following scientific law or not. You may also be told of another form of the same that is to be avoided. Often you are told pursuit of either ie. supernatural power is to be avoided in this life and is taboo. A forbidden fruit if you will. That if there is a need and it is willed it will occur ie. a miracle and to essentially leave it alone. I believe this and haven't given it much thought beyond this.

Generally speaking I imagine it's much of the same. Either the acknowledgement or attempt to study or understand or for some even control and pursue the metaphysical or supernatural, usually for some tangible benefit to the individual. Premonitions, auras, thetan levels, chakras, chi, the list goes on.

I remember a while back I was reading about 'magical thinking' and how it should be avoided. The author of the article mentioned if/when Jesus walked on water it was not just 'magically done' rather the particles of the water were adjusted so they were much more dense and able to be walked on, intentionally of course.

Something to keep in mind though. There's a popular story in a certain religious book of two high priests by an altar, each with an offering, and each aligned to an opposing entity both together for the purpose of showing their followers whose would be accepted/consumed by fire from Heaven and thus is real. Story goes one poured water on their offering and shortly after it was consumed with fire while the others were not. Then I remembered an old chemistry kit I had a while back. Two bottles. One was a powder. The other a liquid solvent, not too different looking from ordinary water. You could mix the two and after a while a bright, dazzling flame would appear and burn for a pretty good while. Who's to say their offering wasn't coated with this powder and their 'water' was not this solvent? Another example. Say a high priest comes to an enemy kingdom in Biblical times holding a staff and demands to see their high priests. Saying they have been misled and are worshipping false gods and that he has been instructed to show them 'the truth' by ways of a divine act so their people may be saved. They agree to see him and he offers them to inspect his staff to see that it is real. They all pass it around and examine it very closely. Now say the staff has been coated with a fast acting and dissipating hallucinogen that he has become immune to by frequent exposure. He throws it by their feet and 'calls forth a snake' over and over making hissing sounds in the process. Let's say the staff is also very identical in appearance to one. They all may very well 'see' one before their eyes then shortly after 'see' it turn back into a staff and immediately inform their rulers this kingdom is sent from God to save them. To name a few examples.

Point being you can easily place yourself in a position where you avoid rational thought and skepticism when you place 'mysticism' foremost. Some say "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and they may be right. Imagine being in the 9th century with a lighter. Or the 12th century with a printing press. Even today in some places. Imagine seeing a lizard regrow its tail, a starfish regrow its limbs, or an 'immortal jellyfish' become mortally wounded and revert back to a polyp only to live again. You'd be amazed. Sure we're told these things happen because 'that's just how their cells are' and 'that's just what they do'. Ok? Lol. If you say so. Maybe the cells in God's brain create humans, disasters, and raise the dead because 'that's just what they do' while you're at it. Rambling but just my thoughts on the subject.

Yes because you were there right. Witnessed it all first hand or something? It was no joy. But, allegedly, it happened. Something I was told was there's neither point or sense in worrying about what already happened. Save for the fact, and this is my assertion, you take note of applicable lessons and contributing factors and ensure they are paid attention to and addressed in order to move forward, restore, maintain, or at minimum prevent further degradation. Not here to create excessive skeptics or 'conspiracy theorists' simply any philosophy that excludes skepticism is hardly one at all. When you have some philosophies that make you question whether or not a person standing right beside you even exists you clearly have a bit of leeway to question a bit more.

Oh there most certainly was. The entire society and civilization was besieged and destroyed. Just about 500 years later to the date. Give or take some. Just long enough for the followers to plan ahead based on what was foretold and maybe even enjoy a few generations or so. For what it's worth. Then again you could argue all that was commonplace at the time.

That's an assertion, depending on interpretation, that is not accepted across the board denomination-wise. Beyond that is who or whatever referred to God as in the Creator of Heaven and Earth?

Seeing as per the book itself humans were created 'with regret' and would 'work until they return to dust' I doubt any negative opinions from them would be of much thought.

For the sake of argument in line with your premise, perhaps the first part was simply an exclamation as it is today and the latter directed toward those present.

Also, if you have a very close knit family. You could say you, your wife, and son are 'one' as in together and form a single unit. That said you are still you and your wife is still your wife. All that aside you really can't expect to be able to fully understand everything to a tee seeing as a major theme is 'God is beyond human comprehension'. Isaiah 55:8, as one example.

Perhaps but it doesn't necessarily have to be all that you've entailed. From my understanding of solipsism, it seems like a rational fallback point in beginning to question what is an objective/absolute truth. Perhaps I'm mistaken as one of the main principles seems to be the self conscious is all that can be known as opposed to all that is known for sure, presumably based on some sort of 'ism' that insists perspective ie. what can be observed or known with the human senses are inherently subjective. Might be a deviation (or simply not solipsism at all) but I imagine a rational thinker would use this as a mental floor to stand on and build so to speak as opposed to a mental ceiling to be trapped under. Anything to that effect, where the person actually begins to feel as you describe could be 'Solipsism syndrome' or depersonalization disorder at worst. Perhaps it may inevitably cause it? I subscribe to the idea there are some poison pill philosophies.

Some people especially online hold or debate views they don't neccesarily live by, often just for sake of debate. I've done so a few times. I'm sitting in my house right now. My cat is nearby on a table. What makes any of those objects 'real'? The fact I can see the walls around me, that I can touch the table, and if I pet the cat it will purr? Perhaps. But so would in a dream.

I imagine a solipsist would begin to gravitate away from the idea when they realise the premise that just because you can see, hear, and feel something doesn't mean it exists really doesn't grant anyone any special privileges. What if the Alexa machine had a glitch and decided it was real? Would it be your new roommate and your equal?

Anyone interested in the idea should watch "Twilight Zone - Shadow Play". It's a really good episode about a stubborn solipsist ... who just so happened to be right. :)

Well a mind is a terrible thing to waste so I'll leave out one idea.

If you got the internet/TV however there's really no shortage of things to learn/occupy your time. Books too. Video games. Online classes.

The more productive the better, naturally. These days people text, call, and practically live on social media anyhow. And get just about everything delivered to the door.

Nothing wrong with starting a garden. Learning to play a new instrument? Trying your luck in painting? I have to say music is always good. Lesser known pieces. I love ocean sounds, waves, storms, etc. myself.

I'd say it's not so much that there aren't, simply they are different across the animal kingdom and can be easily circumvented or made irrelevant.

Humans and just about anything else has to eat or drink to sustain themselves. This is not true for certain single-celled organisms like tardigrades. Also, the 'immortal jellyfish' is quite the conversation starter.

Maybe tomorrow some wacky scientist will come up with a way to make us live forever or be able to offer some surgery where we only have to eat every year or so. If Goliath fought David by hand the story probably would've turned out a bit differently. Not a deviation from Darwinism simply that it is safe to assume 'survival of the fittest' is not explicitly about physical size or prowess. On that note evolution would seem to suggest these laws are dynamic anyhow.

When you say 'biological laws' do you mean say the scientific processes ie. cellular respiration or more of behavior and whatnot or everything in between?

My view. Correct me at anytime if inaccurate.

USA Natural rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. All capitalized actually. Perhaps merely indicating their importance?

These are self evident in the sense that if an individual ever attempted to or succeeded in trying to take take or suppress any of these from you, you'd immediately distinguish this as a grave offense as would any person no matter how young or unintelligent. Speaking from a point of view that overlaps divinity or 'sacredness', observable biological pragmatism, and historical fact (including or being applicable to all three while never relying on or being exclusive to any one). We are here and alive, so this must be a natural right. We can and have done as we please, so this must be as well. Same with happiness, it brings us joy and pleasure.

As far as the sacred bit yes that is pretty explicit as far as (a) God. But not neccesarily. It can mean religious. The question would be can you call a system of belief or way of life a religion that does not acknowledge (a) God? Why couldn't you? Some would say they call this atheism. Or others may even say as human beings we are the gods. Either way there are plenty ways to logically assert human life and rights as sacred or 'venerated' sans Scripture.

That is my view at least.

Edit: Pardon, I read that Franklin replaced 'self-evident' with 'sacred and irrefutable' not the other way around before replying. Eh let's look at things pragmatically. Due to the nature of life and its hardships there will always be atheists. Even intelligent ones. Would you prefer them here and on your side or somewhere else that let's them think whatever they want. Because that's exactly what would happen. And I'm a believer in divine wrath, to say the least. With that in mind it comes down to would you punish someone for merely existing in a society that has laws the person has no real control of or cannot easily change? Probably not right. Either way, whatever happens if you have faith it should be of little concern to you. Especially if you work to advance what you think or in this case know is right.

Hm. That's much more thorough than my prior understanding of it ie. "If a thing seems either more or less likely than it probably is." Not flawless in any way but can definitely see how using it is a very reasonable compromise between accuracy and time saved. Before reading this I'dve thought it and 'common sense' were interchangeable. Thanks!

Wondering something. An example.

Say you're sitting at home and don't get many visitors. It's late in the afternoon and you hear a knock at the door. Who's behind the door? You know this is around the time the mail services deliver and you ordered a package recently. Is it the deliveryman with your package or an old friend who decided to stop by out of nowhere. Easy to assume to former and it's very likely you'd be correct. Not guaranteed of course until you open the door. Would you say there are any parallels to Schrodinger's cat?

I'm gathering it's about reduction of assumption in a hypothesis to increase the likelihood of it being correct.

Say you do get visitors very often. I don't know maybe you're a drug dealer or something. :)

Your good friend said he would be stopping by for a few beers in an hour or two and it's been just about that long. You hear a knock at that door. Who's there? Is it your good friend, wearing white tennis shoes, with jeans that have a rip above the right knee, holding a case of imported beer, with a brand new tattoo he just got of a guitar? Or is it some guy wanting to buy drugs? Due to the excess of specific assumptions regarding the former, the latter is now most likely. Like the first example, you won't know for sure until after you've opened the door.

Am I understanding this well enough?

Pretty spot on definition in my book.

Pretending I didn't read that, I'd have said .. any observable and intentional arrangement of matter not done so for utility.

Seems to me like all this either is, or is being taken as, more of a semantic argument. Things being relative an obligation is something you either must or should do. This depends on the person. If you're a pious one it would include sheltering or assisting just about anyone who comes your way to the best of your ability, provided you have the means to do so. If not, it may only include doing so only to your family, for example. Virtue, meaning conducting oneself as devoutly as possible to whatever one's moral standards happen to be can either be essentially the same or extend a bit further. Piety is the word I believe you may be looking for.

He appeals to the masses. Simple. Relateable. Speaks his mind. And yes nods to the relevant majority. Somehow all while being a billionaire real estate tycoon. As a skeptic I could go on endlessly but. Yeah. Gotta hope for the best.