Chemical interaction to stimuli is not "consciousness".

You could say anything theoretically but until you show me one..

It does and it doesn't. Obviously someone about to faint or pass out or having a stroke is less conscious than you or I as it is traditionally defined or at least perceived.

Interesting branch arguments though. A healthy and awake baby is just as conscious as a distinguished PhD performing surgery. Right?

it must come from the bottom up; which means that people must come to understand and care about the real situation — Janus

So basically we're f'd :lol:

I mean. Why did you become a philosopher. Because the majority thoughtstream "did it" for you? Eh. Have faith. Use your talents and intellect to get in a decent position. Probably your best bet

Probably the most humane way to address overpopulation is simply honesty and truth. You start out with enough to survive, then are shown, the only way I can afford to bring in another kid is by hard work and education and will be there to ensure he is raised right. There is a safety net. For emergencies or severe misfortune. It is not a bed to take a nap on willy nilly. You contribute to society, you earn more. The more you do the more you get. Etc.

It should, ideally, and I understand it does not with infallibility, work where you work hard, you get ahead. Sometimes incredibly far. Mansions and boats. You slack, you may fall behind. Again sometimes incredibly so. Homelessness and exposure.

There's all this talk about the rich but people need to ask themself would they really want to live in a world where nothing they can ever do will ever be rewarded? That's worse than a Sim Game it's even worse than slavery. Worse than cattle. It would be the effective transformation of humanity into robots.

Of course someone with less than you would want to 'force' it from you. We're reverting back to pure cavemanism. What country are you from? Is a smaller enclave who used to own what you do now entitled to it? Hey as long as we're non biased. And as long as you vote accordingly. Other than that you probably shouldn't let greed and petty inability to be content and grateful devalue any and all future human effort and shoot even the concept of value itself. Might not work out so great.

And I'm saying it's happened before and will happen again. Perhaps we are in a relatively unique plateau of innovation contrasted to perceived entirety of invention not seen throughout history. Cannot be proven nor disproven.

Logic is consistant. Sense is unambiguous "objectively" using that danger word.

Yes, theoretically once you know all there is to know, there will be no discoveries to be made and so excitement to be had as a result.

I'm not sure what you're asking. In Ancient Greece should I just kick down a door where people are debating sciences and humanities wearing clown makeup and crazy hair with a bow tie and just start throwing pies in peoples faces? Should humanity collective vote to EMP the entire globe every few thousand years or so? You know both ideas just to keep things interesting.

That what's all over? Innovation, invention, that "human spirit of ingenuity"?

You can Google (I am unable to list them at present) all the jobs that people once held central to society that no longer exist. The exact same feeling you're describing came and went. Each during a period of absolute unheard of progress and innovation.

I was told once every idea has already been thought of and any unique variation is exactly that- a variation. It's like watching a remake of an old movie. Yeah it's usually terrible. But not always. Especially without a reference point.

What has? — Brett

Destruction, strife, etc. Through all the actualizations you mentioned.

We produce other items as well. You can pay for an idea in acknowledgement, admiration, and incorporation into ones daily life.

What’s really new and exciting in our world? — Brett

Certainly not anything you described. Been happening for a long, long time.

I don't think this question needs to be answered with much detail other than technology and vulnerabilities or in a way that contradicts my point the timeless race between invention and irrelevancy. Naturally theres way more. AI. Genetics. Jeez man. You could go to sleep one night and wake up living in the Odyssey at this point.

Is the forum just a reflection of the world, that we’ve reached a sort of evolutionary point of weariness without any reason to struggle or make things new? Is there really nothing new to come, is it out there ahead of us or do we have to create it? And what should we create, something that excites us or something that serves us? Do we even know how to create anymore? Has all this questioning and arguing just reduced things to the state of boiled vegetables? — Brett

Your perception of the users of a single philosophy forum (unfortunately?) does not equal a reflection of the the larger world. Do we really want anything new? The new things we have are constantly becoming more of a liability than an asset. We know how to produce what one would pay for. Unfortunately, that requiem yields a very low need for groundbreaking innovation.

I dunno. Just declare some more facts on a whim until there is. I mean really? :lol:

Really though the word is discernment. Rationality separates the two I believe.

If only this discussion was posted as a Question...

Semantics. You could say fun or love doesn't exist but is a biologic function of.. yadda yadda to prolong and reward survival and/or biologically enriching experiences.

Great. A new theory. A hypothesis must be formed. I'll supply the animal.

It's a curse. A plague. Like the Black Death. The sooner we realize this the sooner it can be rid off. Thoroughly earned mind you. Still, easily rid of. If only we would think as the early philosophers did, that maybe what we're told is not wrong perhaps but incomplete.

The past cannot be changed (we'll leave it at that) rather your not acceptance but.. realization of it and an imagined future that is not already incredibly likely to occur will not happen if you do not work toward it now.

Basically. Do you know of someone else who rested on their laurels their whole life? Precisely.

Before I suggest it, what do you think of the idea of the ability to view a thread sorted by "best posts" independent of any sort of rating system that does anything toward the poster.

Example. This thread under such a system. You can sort by "highest rated posts" and naturally some of the best posts are results of former posts, so you can "pivot" or "traverse" rather the argument or idea both backwards and forwards.

Again this proposed system has absolutely no effect on the poster or any posters independent of the discussion.

Better to start a new topic. — Banno

How so? Why?

To define what is undefined or rather poorly defined. To see what definition has more weight or even simply that those perceived as having less actually have more than was first determined or assumed at first glance.

I suppose you could say I'm not quite (or perhaps even at all) hitting the nail on the head. However, the speed of light is not as mystical as you say. It is measurable. 287,000 miles (or something) per second. It's lack of being timeless is why we can stargaze and "see" distant stars and planets that no longer exist. It can be an emotional idea, whether positive or negative. I believe the idea you're looking for is what happens in a black hole. Which I may or may not should've mentioned.

At the speed of light, Time stops.
At the speed of light distance contracts to nothing. — Benj96

Imagine if you were a snail. At the speed of an elderly woman walking down Main Street with a cane, the same is true. In a way. Yes?

Ok? There's a trash can in the place I dwell, somewhere. I think. I don't shove my head into it and jam my arms into it and be like "oh this is gross let me complain about it to other people." I mean really.

You guys, I found the solution!

You have a New Category that is automatically applied to certain posters: new accounts or those rated as such and either a button just like "Start New Discussion" which is the hugest and most interaction-seeking option on the entire page... or a link under 'Most Viewed' either or that says "Show/Hide Novice Posts". Then the problem is over! Done! Finito! No need to thank me PF, just doing my job.

I disagree I mean if it weren't for idiocy and ignorance I don't think I would have ever wanted to do anything in life other than just sit there and be happy. No reason to want to get ahead or gain power or knowledge because there simply wouldn't be any scourge to fight. Or in the case of forums, points or opposing ideas to disprove or at least put into question. Not calling anyone who was banned any of these qualities I'm just speaking in general.

Furthermore, is there some hidden category I have unchecked where there's this vast influx of activity we can't seem to see. It's a great forum but I wouldn't say in a position to start throwing folks overboard because they don't dot their I's and cross their T's.

Which brings us back to the suggestion of limited or restricted accounts. At sign up, by age of account, by peer review, etc.

Ah. This discussion is just full of surprises. :razz:

Accountability and judgement. To be worldly. Or, to be spiritual. The soul. Fate itself. Basically. What isn't? To be both or even purely sociological... modern, civilized society and it's continued existence. There's really alot to choose from.

It could. Neither intentionally nor unintentionally but rather as the result of an algorithm programmed by logic or otherwise "to be logical". But. If that higher "new" logic isn't quantified by manual human input to be it's own logic rather "more logical" than (algorithmically favored over) a similarly assembled phrase using the same base logic and algorithm it will be otherwise ignored and would only happen as random chance.

I'm thinking all these algorithms when assembling phrases or ideas have a % of accuracy it assesses when building larger forms. Obviously the earliest versions of any kind of program were more gibberish than coherence. But with human input ie. programming, data processing, probability and assessment it improved to what it is now.

Honestly the fact that this forum is ad free really should mean something.

I mean, unless the guy is loaded or something that fact really is quite cool. I may have a slight complex but basically ads do distract me.

Awesome site. :up:

I'm actually really glad this is a thread we can all see, criticize, and participate in as opposed to a PM!

I've asked on several occasions for people in threads about really complex ideas to "simplify", "break it down a bit", or if they could "put it in layman's terms". I can't recall a time when they didn't.

Yeah, sure. If I owned this site I'd do things differently. I mean. Not by much. Not really. Just add more. I am no esteemed philosopher or scientist and I would be denying myself knowledge, experience, and discovery by not allowing them to post in an environment that is suitable to them that I'm allowed to observe.

Perhaps... and this is an idea worthy of it's own thread.

There should be a section on this site somewhat independent of the forums yet connected. Somehow. Like the Articles page.

People submit questions and if either they are rated enough or answered not to the satisfaction of the Inquirer they are at the top. Sounds like a bit too much work when people could just check the Lounge more often. I don't like saying (believe me I'm up in the middle of the night checking this place) but this isn't the most active site on the internet. And I for one would like to change that.

Warning: The discussion unfolding needs its own thread.

Philosophy of Religion can encompass fields that atheists may enjoy and even support, essentially it's positive (or negative) effects on society, psychology, sense of purpose, value where there is observably little, etc. Religion as has been said varies greatly. It (generally) states there is an intelligent Creator God. The details and anything further is subjective of a specific religion. Or sometimes that there "was" as Deism states. I think.

While eager and genuinely encouraging to see. It may not always be so simple. Nor should it be. When there is no room for doubt there is no room for faith. All that remains is fact.

You obey the law because you have to. You praise and worship because you are grateful.

If doing good things automatically rewarded you equally where is the "goodness"? The utility and necessity is there but none of the qualities that make someone a good and kind person.

The only way to be truly happy is to get what you want — Gitonga

Right. And Buddhism instills contentness with only the essential. Food, water, shelter, etc.

I am skeptical of Buddhism as some define it but there are philosophies of it that ring true.

What was that zombie movie where the guy led all the remaining zombies into a room and detonated a grenade? He died truly happy, because he placed the happiness of others, humanity itself even, above his own petty understanding of his own. Was he or was he not a hero?

How many philosophers were content with their lives and the world before pursuing the art?

How many athiest-leaning philosophers would unwarrantedly shun or discriminate against theologic-leaning philosophers who are on par with the art itself?

Statistics are useful. They can sometimes however paint an incomplete picture.

I'd like to add maybe either there can be two or more types of accounts with varying restrictions.

No not everyone you will come across here will be a rocket scientist or without their own unchecked logical fallacies. Last I checked life was a journey not a destination. You don't arrest or remove someone because they argue poorly. Perhaps you can. But it shouldn't take nearly 3,000 iterations to realize it. If you had a problem with their logic it should have come up then not "coincidentally" after a concept you reject.

So yeah. Maybe brand new accounts or posters "not quite up to par" or whatever can have somewhat of a restricted account. One discussion a day or every few days or week or whatever, available to all, selectively or not. Perhaps after some form of open voting or "accepted answers" it can be upgraded/restored. Maybe a higher account level needs at least one accepted answer a week or month or something to keep it, I dunno.

Thoughts?

These people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being black, female or LGBQT, poor, (a)religious or uneducated. — Benkei

Being black? They should. I'd be hard pressed to run into someone who doesn't know about slavery.

Female? Depends I guess. Personally I'd always hire female when it comes to customer service or frontend jobs. The data is there. Besides, most actual cases of qualified female applicants being denied a position are due to pettiness.

LGBTQ is complicated. What you do in the bedroom is nobody's business. Sexual conversation and displays of affection are generally disallowed in the workplace. Homosexuality is an orientation. At no point does it need to be known at work. Mannerism is mannerism and dressing like a clown or otherwise absurdly is a preference and choice independent to that. You cannot just "be unprofessional" or unqualified and get ahead over someone who is solely due to who you want to.. get down with. Something an employer does not ask and should never know. A straight man doesn't just blurt out "I have sex with women" at his job in front of his co workers for no reason. It's inappropriate.

I've yet to see a job that demands bank records. Naturally if you dress poorly you might not get a job someone better dressed does.

Religion is the same. Employers don't ask and religion is generally not part of a diverse workplace.

Uneducated... kind of goes without saying. Hey I mean if there's two doctors one who went to medical school for several years and one who read a few books and had a few successes, I'd take the first guy thank you.

You cannot compare racial discrimination with not hiring someone who's broke or unqualified. Really not hard to see why that's kinda harmful.

I mentioned how it should. What hurts you and why? Empathy is the cure for the cancer that is indifference.

The "others" are anyone not part of the aforementioned group that was described.

That's nice. It's a direct reference to a fictional yet plausible example where the title of the OP is proven to have merit. The argument or parts of it may be flawed and meritless but it is not without ideas that aren't.

We are born enslaved. To helplessness and ignorance. Which dissipates some, usually. Beyond that there is hunger, thirst, exposure, injury, disease, and insanity.

You take care of these for me I'll take care of you. Not much more to it.