That used to be how things were done, but then PHP introduced "protected" and "private" visibility precisely so that we didn't have to do this. — Michael

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that simply put/shift the onus onto the lower developer to use quirky/prefixed variables now?

Example, in running your code, I just got a fatal runtime error "unable to access protected property Person::$name ".

So it's not like it actually frees up the use of the literal verbose name of the variable itself. It just makes it so "Ok now I have to use use '$name2' or '$variable2' instead of what comes firsthand in mind." as far as secondhand development/utilization of a framework goes.

That's the entire purpose of things like public, protected, private, readonly, final, typing, interfaces, abstract, etc; to ensure that developers do things properly. — Michael

Yeah, sure. Again just trying to better understand not to argue purely for the sake of doing so, but- actually no I get it, especially the latter comment. I'm not an "open source" guy so I'm sure you understand my "that's a solution in search of a problem" mindset. Myself, and many others have gone through painstaking measures in attempt to facilitate HTML based interfaces can perform any reasonable, common-use coding in and of itself, perhaps replacing the need to code altogether.

Being able to see at a glance 'protected "name"' immediately tells them that they're not supposed to do '$class->name = 'foo'''. — Michael

I get that completely. But just to ponder. As a hypothetical. Couldn't all that be resolved by using a simple prefix to the variable? Example (and I do this in mine, sometimes, as do others) ... let's use your WTFramework.

Any common variable a person would use $name, $id, $session, $user, etc.... whatever it is...

Instead use a prefix so it would be

$_name or $wtf_name

literally


So no person would ever overwrite a variable in virtually 100% of use cases whatsoever.

I do get the point you want people in an open source framework to access and adjust variables and in a modern PHP dev environment the inline warnings are very useful.

Anyway, nice meeting a fellow coder on here.

Seriously I think TPF or even the two of us should have an old fashioned "code off".

Say a simple guestbook. A page of static content anonymous users can post comments on, sans db, stored as text files. I think that would be interesting. If you have the time.

Often times you don't want that which is why such properties are usually protected or private. — Michael

Doesn't one generally not "publicly" reassign variables from a helper/framework class?

Say I'm incorporating your framework into whatever PHP project I'm working on. I'd have $myclass and $yourclass, respectively. What reasons would someone who is clearly not "public", as in a full on admin level code editor, edit a property of another class? It can't be for some "security exploit" since they have the full code and could just edit it from the parent class.

If they choose to break the code, even unintentionally, perhaps they shouldn't even be coding in the first place.

What I mean is for example, I use Twilio, a well-known telecommunications framework.

So I could have a thousand different variables going on that range from different classes and functions ($appOne, $appTwo, $functionOne, etc) and there will still be only one "helper" or "external" class. Say in this case $twilio.

So there's no reason to randomly change an independent variable that corresponds to a new class or object just to do so.

Say there is an important object I want to re-use I could just use one line of code to "store" it, statically or dynamically with a "&="


There would be no reason for me to manually code/reassign at the top level (meaning I literally can access anything) the following


That would be asinine and utterly intentional. If I can access the parent code I can easily change anything about it anyhow.

Am I making sense? I swear I know what I'm talking about, I'm not trying to be difficult or whatever.

— Michael

;

No different than


Is it? Not on my end at least.

I had to Google the "readonly" stipulation. What realistic (or even atypical) case scenarios can you provide that warrants its explicit use?

Never did "cast" variables ie. string, int, boolean, etc. Didn't see the need to do so if everything it interacts with can handle errors/unexpected inputs, be they common or rare, properly.

Edit: with the exception of certain required internal functions, however in this manner:

I'd much rather a default function-level based "error handling" (ie. not integer detected therefore, perform this) than a top level PHP error that breaks whatever the user is doing (and often the site or at least the specific action page in the process).

Exactly what I was worrying about, how greatly PHP has changed, or "advanced" allegedly.

I'm a solid "OOP'er" as that is, in my eyes, the peak "pinnacle" point of PHP advancement. The last and only paradigm shift as far as I judge.


Anything beyond that has always been a hard pass for me. Simply for reasons of not being needed.

The furthest I go into modern PHP (post 2007) is the use of the double scope (::) operator and even that is for convenience/compatibility purposes.

As example, this is the only use case of the newly introduced scope operator in my framework:

And that's of course out of necessity. I view myself as fairly adept in PHP, at least in the period of time I was most active in it. Hopefully things haven't changed too much...

Nihilism doesn’t choose chaos and hardship, it merely accepts that there is no intrinsic meaning available to us. — Tom Storm

Doesn't the universe seem to though? Space and the world itself is a chaotic, violent place. If there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose available to us- actually. Wait a minute. Is this a faux/proxy theist/atheist argument without either of us realizing it? "Intrinsic meaning" seems to imply, in your usage of it, something that could theoretically only come from intelligent design, no? Meaning, if you do not believe in intelligent design, you automatically are either a nihilist or moral anti-realist? Well that's naturally a pretty easy cookie-cutter argument to make of course.

But if we're looking beyond that- the idea that some form of morals ("right or wrong" as advanced intelligent beings or "progress and regress" as purely cellular beings in a larger scale of actual advancement or purpose or "value" not just simple one-time human observation of what seems to "work" in one man's lifetime levied against purported other lifetimes) might exist and proliferate the Universe and existence itself and we only begin to try to understand it, perhaps pay it lip service in the form of laws, codes, so-called "ethics", and best practices, what concrete proof could any man have against such a notion?

There’s a significant difference between 'there is no inherent meaning' and ‘nothing matters’. — Tom Storm

Well sure, similar to how there's a significant difference between the state of a vehicle that has just drove off a canyon and the state of the same vehicle once it reaches the bottom of said chasm. I see little difference in the two states. Perhaps this is what differs our respective worldview(s).

In layman's terms: "doesn't one inevitably end up as the other?" :)

The problem I have with people who say nothing matters (nihilists, moral anti-realists, literal institutionalized persons, etc) is that the majority of them are functional "hypocrites" (I use the word 'hypocrite' in place of a vulgar term for the severely mentally deficient).

Nothing matters? That's great. Go live in a pile of sand away from society and the goods and services it produced by people who live and die every day for the opposite belief. Who also, as a matter of fact, maintain for you.

Got a phone or internet connection? Someone who believed in moral realism made that.

A car or drive on public roads? Someone who believed in moral realism made that.

Ever used a band-aid? Been to public school? Read a book? Watch a YouTube video? Eat anything beyond a poorly cooked hunk of raw animal flesh? Yup. Provided by a moral realist.

Every breath you take using our inventions is already a disqualification of your attempt at an argument. As far as rational minds should be concerned, it's a non-starter until you live as you believe.

Now, if right now you abandoned every modern invention and went to go live in the woods (not here btw- somewhere undeveloped) and live your truth, then, that's a starting position for an argument. Perhaps someone will find your bones next to a tree with a carving of your attempted non-philosophy and be in a compassionate enough state to take it as serious content. Not here.

Once, when I was lucid dreaming, meaning aware I was asleep, I took a picture with my smartphone to see if when I awoke it would be on my phone's gallery.

It wasn't.

But I definitely took a picture and left a message. It remains in my mind, and now in yours. But neither of us can access it physically, here and awake, that is. So what does that mean?

The only true thought experiments are those performed outside of a laboratory setting where the participants are unaware they're participating in one, and as such are illegal in most cases. Well that's not true, unethical is the word. Which is the foundation of how most today operate. Dating, for example.

"Would you rather [undesirable choice A. vs. undesirable choice B.]..." seems to be the casual go-to.



But as far as contemporary philosophy goes, the trolley problem comes to mind. It's fairly basic yet touches on the main issues of life and society. Life, death, responsibility, action and inaction, blame, guilt, cause and effect, etc..

Well that's somewhat pleasing and comforting to hear. However, like I said. The first million dollar computer that took years of research and took up the size of a room, we now wear on our wrists for little more than the cost of a large pizza. Took 50 years to make that progress. And since then, further progress seems to come so quickly it has become superfluous. So, you see the concern and validity of my argument I'm sure.

Neat. It can be used to make enemies of the state give up information/names/locations of stolen goods, persons, or illicit activities. Kidnappers and ransom takers, etc.

Unfortunately. What some people forget. Is just how the first computer was a massive, costly piece of machinery that took up the entire wall of a decent sized room. We now have them we can wear on our wrists for $50.

Secret drones the size of a housefly exist. Only a matter of time before they hit the market and become affordable any college kid can get hold of.

So what happens, if the current pattern continues? Dare you ask? You could potentially offer to give someone a ride and have the roof or seat of your car equipped with non-contact "brain sensors" of this type and bring up in conversation, "Man someone figured out my bank pin. I used all 4's. I was so dumb. Hey. Whatever your bank pin is... make sure it's good." Upon triggering someone manually by such a phrase it will likely come up in their head, unless you're, what is basically crazy, and start thinking random numbers as quickly and feverishly as possible.

Scary direction indeed. What does this mean for the future of humanity? One could only imagine.

It's like watching a violent friend who struggles with alcoholism or drug use or violence.

Knowing they're going to die (or at least get in trouble and further the negative actions and emotions) but just doesn't listen. No matter what you say or try. They make progress when you're around- sometimes. But inevitably fall right back into their old ways, sometimes getting you into trouble or worse as well.

You tend to discount the person's welfare, if not only temporarily so as to avoid a greater selfishness of not focusing on those who can and will listen and society as a whole. However, you know if they're going to get in trouble or something similar, they're likely going to be impacting other people's lives or society as a whole before they go down. You don't want to just flat out say "Hey man, shape up, you're making us look bad" because more often than not that just pushes them further down into the cycle of negative thoughts followed by foolish actions they can't seem to avoid. Now multiply that by 8 billion people.

It really gets frustrating. You can't just say "oh well" and write off another human being as a "loss" as if they were a carton of eggs that fell off the back of a truck. On the other hand, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Can't save everyone. Many a fool has tried.

It comes down to knowing throughout the development process, people will make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are very severe and overreaching into the lives of those who have nothing to do with the person. Say some kid gets bullied in school or a mentally-unstable adult is habitually harassed at his place of work then decides to shoot up the place and kill 50 people. And you knew the guy. Well, at least talked to him a few times. All you had to do... was be his friend, calm him down, let him know there's good people everywhere and we're all in this together, even those who don't seem to think so. But instead you were in a hurry and got upset because he took an extra two minutes on your order. Point being it really boggles the mind how such small little gestures or even inaction can literally change the world and lives of countless people. So what do you do? How do you even go about solving such a ill-defined yet clear problem? You can't "make people be nice" to one another any more than you can force people to live a life without mistakes they (when lucky) live to regret. What does one do.

Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48

Religion being a "way (or structure) of life perpetuated" the answer would be: depends on the religion.

If, like most people by "religion" you mean a simple compare and contrast of those who believe in creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution/haphazard intelligence then that's a bit different. But not by very much.

I'd delve into this topic in much greater detail but seeing as I'm short on time at the moment I want to pose a question or set of questions to you and anyone who happens to be reading. If religion (believing in God or a set of societal rules, codes, or covenants that absolutely must be followed lest one or one's society become destroyed) limits one's desire for scientific advancement, "advancement" that leads to the point our five human senses are just short of literally glued to inhuman devices and social communication becomes an unwanted chore (sound familiar?) ... by what measure do we judge if something is "regressive" or "progressive". I'll substitute these words with negative and positive, respectfully. You could take a snapshot of a situation, say a sports game and conclude, Team A is losing. This may be true, however in real life unlike sports games, there is no timer. As much as some people like to insist. Perhaps if you took a snapshot at a later time Team B would be losing, and never recover from this position (ie. Team A won despite appearing the opposite due to the limitations of human observation).

In short, I don't happen to find anything particularly "progressive" or "positive" about a society that results in true Nuclear holocaust where the entire planet becomes incapable of sustaining life, even if we do get to watch it all on our little iPhones or smartwatches before we succumb to radiation sickness. Do you? I'd much prefer the steady, predictable, and nuanced old world society where, sure things were simple - if not outright grueling at times - but at least humanity lived on whilst retaining the social communication skills that allowed society to progress in the first place. Wouldn't you? Seems like a reasonable opinion to hold but to each their own..

Humanity can become plenty neurotic contemplating the pains, struggles, and chasms of existence itself, no matter who or what you deem responsible or no matter how long you believe it lasts or continues.

One where more people are trying to enter than exit.

If a person requires to consume particular substances to display or practice certain mental, emotional, and behavioral skills or traits, this means that they are unable to practice those skills or traits *deliberately*. This is a weakness, a disadvantage. — baker

Spot on. I don't believe anyone could disagree.

However one should differentiate "requires" from "prefers". I'd say I "require coffee" first thing in the morning to get moving. I strongly prefer it, and if I happened to run out I would likely go through considerable measures to obtain a cup. But if all coffee ceased to exist from the world, I would simply have to go through my morning routines regardless.

Per my example, sure, if you cannot not be pissed off without becoming intoxicated that indeed would be a problem. On the other hand I stand by the fact for most responsible drinkers, alcohol makes one "more jovial" as in, relative to one's preexisting state of joviality. To further agree with you, yes if one is unable to be jovial without becoming intoxicated that is in fact a negative trait one possesses.

Take something very tedious and boring no one enjoys. I don't know, sorting a 5-gallon bucket's worth of buttons that have become unsorted. For example. If, in this fictional example, you had to do it anyway and it's something you simply don't enjoy, you can't force yourself to enjoy it, that is to say you can't artificially elevate your "happiness" on cue or command absent of external stimuli. Can you? Sure you could look forward to the reward and bear that in mind or focus on it whilst doing so (say they're rare and worth a considerable amount once sorted) or be thankful of how good or satisfactory one's life is and what one has. Sure with discipline one simply does the job regardless. If one would not do the job because of a mental wall or some sort of personal refusal without being intoxicated (alcoholism) then yes that is a separate yet very common set of scenarios.

In short, sure with discipline or "skills or traits" you can be friendly and pleasant even when you're going through hell so to speak. But this is a facade.

I think we can delve into two different common "types" of people's personalities, which many are a mix of the two or others but for simplification we will distinguish two: "introverts" and "extroverts". I wouldn't say it's fair to condemn one over the other as being a "weakness" or "disadvantage". Some people just don't like crowds. Some people can't be by themselves for more than a few days without losing their mind or at least becoming irritated or depressed. It's different mental configurations be they biological, habitual, or a combination of both. So, while I agree with most everything you've said I think the assertion that someone who "requires to consume particular substances" to say have fun and feel at home in a crowded or unfamiliar environment is an automatic, cut-and-dried "weakness" and "disadvantage" needs some revisiting.

Fear. Ignorance. Not to say people are saints of course and no man of a particular self-identification is more or less prone to acts of social ire than one without. A long time ago people had too much free time, that is less to occupy one's mind than we do today. Very little was known about the nature of the world (arguably little has changed) and the prevailing religion of the day was superstition. Bad things happened quite often and a fledgling humanity sought answers for the troubles that ailed them. The human mind needs a devil, someone or something else to blame when troubles arise. Who do you blame? Your mate at the pub who you bump shoulders with every other day, go to one another's house, and whose kids play together? Or that person or small, mysterious group of people who keep to themselves all day nobody seems to really know anything about. Makes sense really.

"The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" is a good example of this psychological phenomenon.

No I get it. The constants of the site are loaded (header/footer ie. core HTML structure, images, universal JS/CSS, etc) and any content can be a simple albeit long string along with functions needed only for the specific page vs. requesting the aforementioned over again. Although I was under the impression all browsers "cache" the aforementioned and minus the 1-1 handshake that the server is still reachable, which would have to be done anyway to request "about.js" or whatever new content medium in the first place, doesn't seem to differentiate the two methodologies by very much? Perhaps I misunderstand. Fair enough. However..

SPAs don't require Ajax. — Michael

If it's an obituary for a cat or memoirs of the owner of said cat, sure. At that point it might as well be a single page website with a floating sidebar of whatever section you wish to scroll to or at least a fixed menu of the sort. I suppose it does save browser memory- the content not being rendered by the browser and stored in the JavaScript as text, especially images or videos not rendered and when changed they are thus freeing up the memory from any images or video previous rendered when you change to the new "page".

But for anything useful like a public forum or guestbook, or say billing or payment application where an action could have been made from another avenue ie. by phone and needs to be updated, it really ought to communicate with the server, wouldn't you say? Am I wrong? if so, how and why. with examples.

I get the concept (I think?). For a small or medium sized business. You load every single item (thousands), image link, and description (often lengthy) when someone visits your homepage? That doesn't seem efficient to me. I suppose it simply loads the blank "default item" page and clicking the item individually loads its information? That would still require every single item in inventory's ID, picture, title, and usually price to be loaded from the first homepage visit. That seems a bit much.

Sure for many places, a restaurant or small business it seems fine that just links to an image of a menu or something. Not sure what greater benefit an SPA would offer as opposed to HTML-based page browsing from the user's end? (assuming they have a good connection)

Gmail settings will not load a new page. — Jamal

Right but if you had a good internet connection in the first place the literal only advantage/difference between not changing a page to going back to the main email listing in a click of an X button is vanity and perhaps a non detectable fraction of second. It's vanity. No utility. Sure if your internet fails and it lets you click an "X" to return back to an email listing if you happened to have the setting page for a prolonged period of time for some reason without a connection (which I doubt it does) perhaps an email title and the few words included in the preview might be useful. But other than that I fail to see any utility or useful difference between the two (direct page loading vs. single page AJAX loading. Also remember you're describing AJAX deep down at the end of the day, SPA is one version of a larger picture. AJAX vs. HTML page loading, that's what I'm referring to.)

Well sure, but what is an email web client but a collection of notes, albeit most sent by others and to and fro. If you do anything but opening a note or adding to it (responding to an e-mail) say, changing account settings it does a full redirect to a different URL.

See, right now, my internet is throttled (or something) and I can't even access the Help (?) or Settings (gear icon) button no matter how many times I click the damn thing. You can't even right click it and get the actual URL to open in a new tab because it's too busy loading 50 different things I DON'T EVEN NEED AT THE MOMENT OF ACCESS. LOL. Come on. See my perspective.

Oh look now it just opened. And I STILL CAN'T CLICK A LINK UNDER THE SUB MENU. Nor can I right click it!!

I'm grateful you don't experience what I do. But for the many who do. It's a nightmare. And it's still happening. lol

oh look now i'm offline. see. it's frustrating. and this is the largest company in the world. very annoying. like i were an anti-humanist trying to piss technology users/computer people off. i could not think of a better way. just saying.

Which websites for example offer this truly "one page" browsing in entirety?

Where you visit example.com and every action or section never changes the URL regardless of the intricacy or specificity of the action?

Most all I've seen redirect to certain URLs (say example.com/billing or example.com/billing/pay) but load (presumably blank) templates for each URL section that are then filled with the specific information via JS or "SPA" if I understand the term correctly. At the very least a /terms or /about page. I can't recall a single website that operates as you describe, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept.

With SPAs, different views are rendered (and actions completed) in the browser without loading a new page or refreshing, using JavaScript to invisibly communicate with the server. Often, all the necessary HTML, JavaScript, and stuff are downloaded once, when you log in. — Jamal

I abhorred these things when they first came out. If your internet is not good or perhaps is throttled due to reaching an allotted usage level, nothing would ever load and worse never told you it didn't. They seemed to have improved it by forcing a manual redirect/better fail-safes in more robust frameworks but there was nothing like clicking a link or performing an action and the browser itself telling you "hey it failed" right when it did so you knew to refresh or try again later. Just my 2 cents.

Sure it was nice if say you had a website that served another function other than a forum and the user can dynamically load the latest forum posts if they wanted to without having to pull double queries from the site and the forum database for efficiency or a site like Twitter or stocks that benefit from instant updates or things that change from one second to the next.

edit: On an active forum makes sense, so any new posts/threads just pop up a few seconds after they're posted. But for a niche blog site, especially authored by just one or two people where the only new content is posted every other day or few days is really not needed imo. but people like knowing they have all the latest shiny bells and whistles, even if seldom used.

Do they really? It is so normalized to drink during social occasions. Why would you want to cause an illusionary state whenever you socialize, how does that make any sense? — Skalidris

That's the point mate, for a responsible drinker being less pissed off and more jovial is not an "illusionary" state. Now it can easily and arguably inevitably lead to such. But that's a complete reversal of the word responsible.

Okay, so let's imagine you have to choose between spending some fun time doing something you only like when you drink, or doing something you like when you're sober, would you consider them both as valuable in your life? — Skalidris

Sure. That's a far cry from your original premise to jump from having to specify a "fun time doing something [one] only enjoys when drink[ing]" but we can roll with that if you like. Naturally that's a personal choice and my random answer doesn't seem to touch on any philosophical or logical aspect but, if I may rephrase your question to what I believe is your intended or rather more widely beneficial "purpose" as: "Would I wish to enjoy something I only enjoy whilst drinking and never did before over something I previously enjoyed and no longer can (this is the main stipulation) unless sober?

I would consider results valuable. Yes if a person has a more enjoyable time, and they place enjoyment over productivity it would indeed be more valuable in my life. Perhaps I enjoy productivity more and am (like many) unable to be as productive whilst drinking. In such a case it would absolutely be the opposite. That's my point. Everybody is different. Having half a beer versus drinking half a bottle of hard liquor counts as "drinking" just the same, arguable. So yours is a loaded question with undefined variables as is.

I didn't get the point of your story. — Skalidris

And exactly why I told it. Different strokes for different folks.

To circle back to the primary question, if not cheaply, why are enjoyable experiences enjoyable? Because they are.

This can't be a serious question. Though, I once met an Uber driver once who, when the conversational topic of alcohol randomly came up, informed me he couldn't drink it, as in his body couldn't tolerate or process it correctly. Hiding my deepest sympathies I lightheartedly replied, good for him and mentioned the dangers and potential lethality. Boy was I relieved to arrive at my destination and escape being in the mire of such a grim fate bestowed upon someone.

Whenever I tried it, it just felt like a dream where I wasn’t fully in control of my thoughts, and I never liked it. — Skalidris

It simply wasn't for you then. Just not something you need or should be consuming.

Why do humans want to escape their mind and avoid reality? How is it an advantage? — Skalidris

Kind of asking two completely different albeit vaguely and circumstantially related questions here. Your experience is exactly, that. Your experience. Completely unique from 8 billion others. Sure many are like you, and if a thing is a hindrance, which it is to many, then cast it away.

For the majority of responsible consumers of alcohol who can handle it, it's a welcome reprieve. For some a distraction, for others a way to focus. A "social lubricant" it is called by many. It puts the majority of, again responsible consumers who can process it correctly, in a "good mood" of sorts. Certainly there's an argument for your disposition as though it does seem to make problems disappear, responsible drinkers know this is an illusion and temporary state, and know they cannot simply avoid them or avoid work toward resolution of said problems. In short, it allows the majority of people to have a quick and cheap good time even in hard times.

It is easy to fall into complacence and avoid one's responsibilities however, yes. Abuse can be harrowing and indeed fatal. One can indeed lose everything. This happens quite often. For many, especially the less intellectually inclined, it is in fact best avoided. At least, habitually.

Even when reality triggers negative feelings, it’s more efficient to be sober and think about a solution rather than choosing denial by getting drunk — Skalidris

Just because you're sober or awake, as you think, doesn't mean you're any more coherent or in touch with the absolute nature of things than someone who is perhaps a bit less than sober. Not automatically, that is. Sure plenty of habitual consumers of alcohol ie. "drunks" are in fact dregs of society, but for many, this remains true whether sober or not.

Again, your experience is your own, and if that experience is fact for you, I would continue and have no argument whatsoever. As far as you and your individual, private choices that can be shared, if one asks.

why do 99% of humans long for that state at least once in their life? — Skalidris

Oh come now. I doubt you've even met 0.0001% of humans. These inane generalizations are textbook characteristics of exactly the kind of person who should not be drinking, save for a special occasion under supervision by fellow citizens (friends) and supervisors (bartenders) perhaps? :smile:

Why haven’t we evolved out of this? — Skalidris

Why not ask why aren't we all the stereotypical, imagined grey alien, content with standing around with nary an emotion, whim, or desire for any amount of time? Because life is about change. You become aware. You can learn to walk, learn to run, learn to ride a bike. It goes on.

Understood, in your purported, limited experience it creates an uncontrollable state of mind. Understand this is not the norm. Not when reasonable care and moderation is taken.

But if the question boils down or becomes tangential to "why do people like to feel pleasure and ignore pain", well. It becomes quite moot and elementary at that point. Wouldn't you say?

people tell themselves all sort of things to stay in their denial to avoid facing their problems. I don’t believe this is just a random trait that stayed within us while having no advantages, so what could it be? Maybe if we weren’t driven to choose denial whenever something is too horrible, we would be totally insane and couldn’t deal with reality — Skalidris

You seem to be entranced by the word or concept of 'denial' so let me tell you a story based on the truths and falsehoods of what people commonly prescribe to be a case or "unchangeable situation" of such.

Two brothers became trapped in a cave once. A seemingly inescapable situation where the mouth of the cave collapsed thus sending their rappelling gear and ropes down and making the opening impossible to reach. The men quickly resorted to their primitive state, after consuming all their rations, eating bugs and each waking up early to gather the liberal stream of leaking water nearby. They fought once, nearly killing one another, but in the end decided if they were trapped without any hope of rescue, any one killing the other would do little but prolong the inevitable, and curse the lone survivor to perish under the burden of a needless murder that ultimately changed naught. So they explored what little they could. Their sources of illumination (flashlights, matches, a lighter) soon expired and became inoperable except for the emergency flashlight each one possessed. As they explored one noticed the other's flashlight was running low and such ascertained his might soon as well thus dooming them both so as they explored they would often do so without using either. The man who's flashlight was running low happened to have become injured in the dark and blamed the other for "setting him up" and so on their return from the darkness became immovable from the location of the cave where they had originally fallen to remain in the light of the crevice where he could keep watch on his immediate surroundings, leaving the other to explore by his lonesome. Several days passed, each mind becoming more ravenous, paranoid, and untrusting. The man with the fully charged flashlight would depart into the darkness, each journey becoming longer and - according to his accounts - more hopeful, returning with plenty of insects and moss which he would always split with his sole, now-immovable companion. His flashlight soon grew dim too, barely functional, hardly able to light up a few feet in front of him. However, the next day he, the traverser of the seemingly endless abyss that trapped them both returned, manic, unable to control himself. He informed the other he discovered a crevice about a mile or 20 minutes in from which he was able to spot a fisherman or person on the river and would signal to him with his flashlight that the man returned in response. "I need your flashlight, brother!" he exclaimed. The man who would not budge looked at his clearly manic, near-insane brother and instantly imagined another "perceived trap" or simple descent into madness. He grabbed him with what little strength he had left and threw him against a rock brandishing a sharp hunting knife he was unaware the other possessed and said "I tell you now, flee from me, or I promise you, this next trick will be your last" and cut him shallowly on his forearm, breaking his flashlight as he fell backward. His swears, promises, assurances were no good at this point. He realized that. So, he departed. That night, while the immovable man slept, the brother swiped his flashlight and swapped it with his own.

As it turned out, the explorer's word was true. He did in fact signal a young fisherman who brought his family out to the river and was able to signal to them "SOS" using his sleeping brother's flashlight. That night the nearby town organized a search and rescue party, bringing in equipment to the awake brother's position. As the entire town on riverboats and buggies broke through the crevice freeing the flashlight signaling man, now delirious with hunger and fever, as he cried "My brother, my brother is still trapped, you have to save him!" a loud noise was heard as the cave which had confined him collapsed behind. The flashlight signaling man was rescued and taken to the local pub for a meal and hard ale. The rescue team immediately sought out for the still trapped brother, going by the location given by the now rescued man.

Epiphenomenalism — petrichor

Oh come now that can't be a word.

On a broader point, your current premises of "feeling pain" being different than "responding to stimuli" is lacking in merit. And that's a charitable view at best.

Surely you mean, accessing a former state of non "pain" and thus mentally calculating a situation, act, or moment is "wrong" and needs to be immediately corrected by further action. This is a huge difference between your current premise as-is. This requires both retainable and accessible knowledge of A,) past B.) present and C.) future (that is to say ability to formulate or postulate a future action or state by applying something from either (A) or (B).

Does science not sometimes contradict other science? Does religion not always contradict other religion? This is your starting point. Your journey is yours and yours alone.

Presuming this thread is locked and unlocked for a set period implying discussion is encouraged if not warranted or vaguely allowed for purposes of vanity..

What made you draw such a definitive conclusion? Surely you've heard the popular phrase oh I like/dislike "X" because "X reminds me of Y" and so on...

It is physically possible for a collective society to breed out intelligence and perhaps even things such as pain sensitively (physical or emotional) ie. are emotionally blunted or as some would say "just dumb" and as a result things such as consideration, empathy, or emotional intelligence are socially of low importance where any who happen to consider them important reproduce substantially less - if at all - resulting in a genetic tendency to more likely be what people consider and associate with or as "evil" ie. prone to violence, lack of empathy, or enjoyment from the unwarranted suffering of others.

In addition to genetic mental conditions that affect things such as impulsivity, lack of long term planning and consequences, emotional cognition and recognition, etc, etc. Along the lines of medical research implying some people can be "born" or otherwise prone to psychopathy or sociopathic tendencies.

There's also something known as the crucial development phase (1-5 years or so) or otherwise where the person's "comfort zone" is strife, conflict, and what an otherwise "normal" person would call unease. In simple terms they don't feel normal or "at home" unless people are fighting. It's normal for them. So it can go both ways. See the movie (Cycle?) or History of Violence, one of the two or something along those lines I forget.

Why do you think this happens? — Vera Mont

Why do people pay more for celebrity endorsed products. Because someone "important" or socially valuable did it. Or even just because the next random guy did it. It just feels right. We are natural followers.

Is it confined to a related group of cultures or is it world-wide? — Vera Mont

Yes. Very simple division that is frowned upon here to discuss. Two camps. The "all that you ever did or can experience is between your first breathe and last" and those who think a bit more freely. Or unrealistically, some will say.

Do you do this yourself - follow the procession on screen, or leave flowers and messages at the site? — Vera Mont

No. I would if I thought it would alleviate some burden for someone worthwhile. But I don't currently, no.

What do you think about the practice? — Vera Mont

It is beneficial. No harm can come about. Unless a certain variety of plant life ceremonially used happens to be endangered or a major road closure happens to disrupt a local or regional economy to a significant degree.

How do you feel about it? — Vera Mont

Depends. Good, I suppose? Art is unnecessary. It serves no utilitarian purpose in the most scrutinizing definition of the word. And yet it often does more so than things that inherently do.

A problem with the simulation argument is that it is unclear to me why an entire civilization would choose to dedicate its resources to ancestor simulations. Not only would doing so be highly unethical and a complete waste of resources, (not to mention it would take a lot of time and resources to build this simulation) it would also be entirely pointless, given that everything that will happen in the simulation is already known, given that the simulation world is deterministic. — NotAristotle

The problem with your argument is simple.

When you were a child, say 6 years old, are whatever your earliest memory was. You thought it was the ultimate reality. Everything you knew was all there was to know. Everything you did was the wisest or at minimum most reasonable course of action at the time of doing it. But you got older. Some humans die at a young age and this was their ultimate reality. Surely even you must acknowledge some adults die in a similar stage, that is to say ignorant of a greater reality, way of life, or series of talents that could have brought upon a greater experience and as a result existence?

Surely you cannot be so naive as to think the ultimate reality that could ever be experienced was from the first opening of your eyes to your last breathe nor even that of the smartest most wisest and accomplished person to ever life? Surely not..

I thought this thread was titled 'All things Cannibal' and became intrigued. Alas.

It was fun growing up and remains a fine way to pass or enhance the time if you really needed to I suppose. Whether due to the brain fog, racing or unusual thoughts, or the fact they check to make sure, it's fallen out of favor with me personally in recent years.

As a matter of fact, there are several.

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? — simplyG

You can be happy and bored or otherwise acknowledging there's more to discover or enrich one's life or understanding with. That is to say just because you're satisfactorily entertained or otherwise occupied and largely content doesn't mean you're "happy". In fact, you could even venture as far to say philosophy is far from the pursuit of happiness despite the nomenclature of "love for wisdom". We associate love with happiness, but as I'm sure we can all attest to, this is not always so.

It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

They're musings that seem to have stood the test of time, at least to the majority of persons. If you were born into 18th century royalty, your life would be far from suffering. If you're born in a dangerous jungle without knowledge to survive and avoid predators, ignorance is quite the opposite of bliss. People just tend to go with things that seem to work more often than not and call it truth. After all, it must be at minimum closer to truth than fiction. Right?

Please include more direct questions in your OP. While your musings are appreciated, they - at least for myself - become difficult to "unpack and attack" as they say in the world of intellectual debate.

A spark of inspiration that is either the start of a story or the outline of one and then I just write. It's best that I write as much as possible before proof reading or even reading it back. If I do that I run the risk of disrupting the flow and then it can take a very long while before I get back into it. — Benkei

Basically this for me. Well, often there's one (or if I'm lucky several) "perfect"/"ultimate" scene(s), idea(s), or moment(s) I visualize in my head and think "wow that'd be an awesome book/movie/what have you..." and work backwards from there.

You got to "transport" the viewer into an entirely new world... so to speak. Describe things in painfully vivid detail without becoming clumsy or too cumbersome in your wordage. As if you were describing something to a blind person, for example.

The simple sentence "John sat down at the table and had a glass of tea" could be expanded into an entire chapter with the right nuance, subtleties, visual descriptions, and inner dialog. Whether or not it would be a good idea depends on the context and intent of that particular work.

Freedom and socialism don't work. Because then you just sit there and let "someone else take care of it". How do you think the other person gets paid or is otherwise rewarded/compensated for their "taking care of things" ie. farming/planting/waste disposal/parcel delivery/law enforcement literally any work you can imagine. By having a higher position than you. They can lie to the position above them (FAR above you) and you will face the consequences without a single jury or trial simply because they outrank you ie. are your social better.

Iron-fisted authoritarianism and socialism works wonderfully. You do what you're told when you're told ie. farm this, build this, do this etc, etc, and say if something goes wrong ie. bad harvest due to bad weather, someone steals what you've built (and if you are found to be complicit in this 'theft' you will be punished severely), the powers that be sigh, and give you enough food, water, and resources to survive regardless.

There's definitely pros and cons to both. Unfortunately in one system injustices are known to rarely ever see the light of day...

Math and little more. At least in respect to generally or widely accepted notions and definitions of numeric constants and operations.

I suppose in a more philosophical area, the idea that questions exist and answers can be formulated, proven, and disproven. Albeit not to every individual's particular satisfaction or standard of burden of proof or level of scrutiny.

In short, "I think, therefore I am." .. or are you? Therein lies the proof there is at least some truth or falsehood and the ability to ascertain whether or not a statement or concept is closer or further away to each, respectively. If not at least by widely accepted standards, practices, and definitions.

Edit: That's amazing. I didn't even read @flannel jesus's post under after. lol

Great minds think alike I suppose :smile:

A man is a male.

Masculinity is whatever the current social trends are. I believe now the relative social norm is being relatively athletic if not outright strong and having a quality of what can be called "assertive" or "dominant".

Sigh. Imagine me yelling at you the following phrases:

You don't ASK for directions, you GIVE directions. You're NEVER lost. You're just somewhere you never had the care to visit before.

You don't ASK for help, you GIVE help. Whether fools want it or not.

You don't ASK for a solution. You BECOME the solution.

You don't INVITE people to a party. You ARE the party.

It just gets more and more illegal as you continue on. Crabs in a bucket? Definition of insanity? Perhaps. But you don't care! You're the MAN, man.

In this day and age of ignorance, just being as loud and annoying as possible as well as prone to violence will probably define what your looking for. Essentially being an adult child but with the distinct quality of being able to incapacitate anyone who calls you out for being such so as to emulate the quality of a god ie. omnipotence.

Or being of or having the quality of being able to "take it like a man" ie. pain tolerance. I suppose to defend that which instead solely nurtures and attack in response.

In contrast to femininity which is essentially to nurture.

I banned introbert for being mostly unintelligible. — Jamal

From his profile: "Invited By Jamal"

Hmm. :chin:

Definitely makes one wonder who was out of line or otherwise in an unclear mindset first.

Understanding of time, memory, and decision making as a result of real or imagined past, present, and future states of another biologic being.

Edit: Absent of programmed nature. Which is argued that the human brain is little more than a sponge that retains and in a sense "obeys" what is generally thought of as "mindless" programming of past experiences and education albeit with a degree of randomness.