So first off this is just a beautiful post. For me personally, it's the genuine nature of it as if we were having an in-person conversation coupled with the almost fatherly level of insight.

The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. — Tzeentch

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature?

If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all. — Tzeentch

Take safety for example. As a shopkeeper, I don't have to ensure there's a wet floor sign present after an employee has recently mopped the floor leaving it ready for an unsuspecting person to slip and fall. Now, in most countries this would open myself up to lawsuits so of course I would act to avoid such possibility. But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. Not a great point or angle but expanding some, many places do have laws that somewhat "force people to do the right thing" not for "rightness" sake but because without it, problems would occur, be they financial, emotional, moral, etc. This is probably a bit aside from your point but, sure you can't force someone who is wealthy who walks by a beggar who would, for all you know, might possibly die if you don't give him a bit of your change, change that as a wealthy man is beyond superfluous. But, we have social... shall we say "laws that aren't laws" norms, which would encourage you to do so. Perhaps a less fortunate person who witnesses you walk by without even a passing glance and verbally condemning you as "cheap" or "heartless". It's not that serious, but it does exist. And many people do abide. No one's forced, per se, at the barrel of a gun or end of a sword, but in a way, it's certainly coerced in some sense, is it not? :smile:

Peter Singer famously argues for infanticide up to a certain point. He claims that: "human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Famously?" No wonder I've never heard of the guy. The underlined random assertion simply doesn't logically follow the preceding factual statement. It doesn't even seem to attempt to. So, at least for me, it doesn't ever actually reach the threshold of what constitutes "an argument". Basically, there is no "therefore" as the logic falls apart at that point so anything that comes after and is based on that non-logical assertion is akin to opinionated rambling. Yet, you seem to entertain it, which suggests perhaps I'm simply missing something. A baby does in fact have the status of personhood, legally, and socially. It's a baby person. Any disagreement of that is like saying a different ethnicity of humanity isn't a person because "I say so", at least to me. It's just another opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm reminded of an argument @Hanover once made, saying an unconscious or sleeping person is still a person, and their rights don't suddenly vanish. That was a response to some argument about mental invalids or some other business he responded to. Maybe it was an abortion debate. That was probably it. Just seems relevant to me. Basically stating just because, at a particular time (be it a newborn or a sleeping adult) that human being is not processing, communicating, and interacting with the world, doesn't mean they're not (or all of a sudden no longer) a human being. So, by that premise, to accept this man's claim is to also accept the claim that killing an entire city of people who happen to be asleep at the time of their death is technically not killing anyone. Which is comically absurd.

Seems like a fair counterargument to me, at least. Albeit likening the development of a newborn into a child is not quite the same as an adult waking up from a state of sleep. Yet, there are notable parallels, I'm sure many would agree.

Personally, I think such an argument makes him out to be little more than just another Jonathon Swift wannabe. You can tell he's quite proud of it. :lol:

The intellectual version of a cookie-cutter shock jock. Can't be insightful? Be controversial. The average person today is, after all, intellectually, and to an extent (likely as a result), morally, low-hanging fruit. Cheap taste and short memories. Easy to control. Thankfully.

The young revolutionary is still in there, but he has to contend with the older person who realized that calling for a revolution is calling for a huge amount of suffering, which is diabolical. So now you have an internal conversation about justice and acceptance. — frank

Oh please. Don't sugarcoat the lowest form of thought as if it was something even possible to dress up as or purport as anything but exactly what it is: childish illusion and ignorance. "Everything isn't perfect so let's destroy everything that stands in our (my little) way until it is." Insolence. Myopia. Nothing more. That should be put down for the good of society as quickly as possible.

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

(Ironically you are met with the prompt: "Wikipedia does not have an article on "the grass is always greener on the other side", but its sister project Wiktionary does." Which I refuse to believe is some sort of purposely-laid hint of rationale that the idea is not as sound as most would tend to believe...)

Does my complicated odyssey — jufa

What's complicated about it? Lots of people suffer, go through trials, have pain, misfortune, etc. In fact, that's pretty much par for the course.

What makes you so special? Could it perhaps be, ego ie. childish delusion? Sure, perhaps your existence, out of the billions and billions before you is somehow set apart, not in your own mind, but by pure fate. So what? What are you going to do with it? What do you want? Surely you don't expect others to bow to your whim and will because of such a possibility. Do you?

Is consciousness the same as awareness (or even awareness of one’s thoughts)? — kindred

"The same" as in can be used interchangeably in any case, context, or scenario? Clearly not.

I’m not sure I know exactly what consciousness is or what is happening to give rise to conscious experience. — kindred

Nobody is, apparently. :smirk:

Is there anything special about consciousness? I guess it separates us as life forms compared to plants which do not posses consciousness but are mostly stimuli driven … is consciousness just a more refined form of subject to stimuli-environmental interaction ? — kindred

Special? It must be, hence the millennia of debate on the matter. "Just a more refined form" seems to gloss over the -- basically infinite -- amount and level of depth that comes with the broad concept of form itself. Is the modern international mail and parcel delivery system "just a more refined form" of me handing you a piece of paper? Is the Grand Canyon just a big hole? I mean, sure, but one typically refrains from such comparisons likely owing to the fact such oversimplification is generally seen and thought of as a display of ignorance.

Specifically, I believe, the answer is generally considered "not quite". Take an advanced robot that can detect 1000 times your level of physical observable perception, every facet of any dust molecule for further than the human eye can see. It doesn't "know" things, it merely observes and responds as a result. Without going too far into the free will aspect, it's clearly a world of difference.

Is there much of a difference between awareness and consciousness or are these two things the same or closely related ? — kindred

"To be aware of something" ... how could you unpack this into words and a single agreed upon definition that fits every situation, every scenario, every case no matter how obscure and unlikely...

A plant is "aware" of threats to its environment and releases chemicals as a result, per se, depending on how generous you'd like to be as far as wordage and vernacular. So, I would say: [there is] probably [considerable difference].

A subset property of consciousness or awareness I suppose is “thinking” whether concrete, abstract or conceptual occurs in the stream of consciousness as conceptual steps to perhaps problem solving or types of creative processes, yet I cannot help but feel that thinking, consciousness and awareness are pretty much the same thing and that perhaps the distinction between them can overlap or be blurred.

From this perspective if we didn’t have consciousness then there would be no place for thinking to occur in and we’d merely be stimuli reacting automatons like plants. Yes we would function but at a very primitive level and our ability to communicate and invent would be non-existent … — kindred

"I think, therefore I am" comes to mind. To me a requirement for something to be considered conscious or intelligent is understanding of the passing of time. Past, present, future ie. "I woke up today, I am awake now, and, if alive, will inevitably be going to sleep later". The ability to store memories and knowledge and "access" said information is certainly a requirement. And yet, a computer can do the same, functionally, at least. But we wouldn't consider that "consciousness" as it's simply following a combination of programming and user commands.

Compare something generally thought of as non-intelligent yet having a nervous system and a brain, say, a fly. There are plenty bodily and organic systems relatively similar to those of human beings, but, do we really think a fly "makes decisions" or "ponders concepts" the way a mammalian brain does? Does a fish? Probably not!

Inventing is an interesting concept, yes. Beavers build lodges, squirrels hide away food for the winter, ants practice agriculture and slavery, surely they know what they're doing, at least in some sense. Or do they? They must, right?

Thoughts ? — kindred

Oh, offer us a penny first, at least. :grin:

What are thoughts, really? Often a response or handling of emotions or physical stimuli, especially things, situations, and circumstances that affect one's biological needs and personal desires. You feel hungry, "I'm hungry, I want a pizza". You're on a budget and your cell phone bill is due in a few days, "I really shouldn't order a large pizza, so maybe I'll just get a hotdog and some chips." You're single and the counter lady is attractive, "I'm going to ask her if she's single." She replies in the negative and it annoys you, "Dang it, every time!" So on and so forth. It's like, one's personal narrative or movie commentary going on every waking moment. Perhaps not the best example... others are welcome to provide a more accurate one.

Perhaps we might even be able to imagine animal experiences to some degree, although this seems like it would be far less accurate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Let's take the bat example. I find it difficult someone of your intellect would find it surmountable to create a video game (assuming you knew everything there is to know about "making video games") or rather, a simple few moments of imagination to form a thought experiment, where a player could "view the world" with echolocation. It's literally the only thing they have to avoid crashing into hard, possibly blunt or even sharp objects. Not that hard to visualize. Reminiscent of military/air sonar, isn't it?

My point is, it's not hard to dumb yourself down (though accurately and in relative ratio/correspondence does take a fair amount of intellect) enough to imagine. In fact, would you not say a fighter jet piloting a military jet using radar to see his targets and allies is, in many if not most ways, basically a similar experience to the bat? Think about it. Sure you have your own thoughts going on (mission objectives) but at the end of the day the little blips that give little information (other than if you crash into any of them you will likely die) ultimately guide your way?

We all have the same faculties or rather appendages, but the brain and development (or lack thereof) or other related systems either bolsters or hinders their "usefulness". The same dog that can't open a doorknob a 2-year-old could even if there was a pallet of dog food behind it to save it's life can sniff out a single bullet 100 yards away or the slightest residue of explosives under three layers of airtight seal thus saving the lives of possibly millions of people (in the right scenario). So, while some things aren't quite so hierarchical, there's certainly clearly defined descriptions or telegraphic, structured forms of experience. Certainly ones that humans can detect, describe, or at least talk about with some significant degree of accuracy.

Basically, that bat that just got done defecating in a cave isn't just sitting there pondering about the metaphysical ramifications of Plato's Cave or the ramifications of determinism vs. consequentialism, for example. There's much, much less going on in that little brain of its, I'd guarantee. Ergo, it's not hard to imagine the experience, perhaps with a bit of effort.

Perhaps we might even be able to imagine animal experiences to some degree, although this seems like it would be far less accurate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is most interesting to me. Why not? Do you think there is an animal that is somehow more advanced than say, the average person? Surely such a notion is ridiculous. Where are their cities? Their sciences? Their mastery of the environment and the atmosphere? The point being, as a higher being, the idea of some other (yet clearly lesser) being's "existence" as something "unfathomable", eh just doesn't convince me. If that makes sense? Sure, it's different. It takes understanding, some sort of "sensory empathy", if you will. But the idea of it being something just "indescribable" (in a technical sense, not a "provable" sense) seems to need a bit more evidence than just "oh you're not that fly that just mindlessly flew into a lamp so you'll forever live a life damned to miss out on what that was like". If that makes sense.

an actual experiencing person in a room who is practicing manipulating Chinese characters correctly for years and years but never learns what they mean. He can use the characters correctly and have conversations — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, what differentiates this from using say, random shouts or phrases or whistles (basically speech). To me this reads as "he can speak a different language and have conversations in that language but doesn't really know what he's saying." Kind of a mental cliff dive there for me. Can you explain more based on what you perceive to be my understanding?

Edit: So, basically like a kid randomly shining a flashlight outside his window and seeing a light flash in return. Every time he "flashes" (turns the light off and then on again) any number of times, the person shining a light back responds with the same number of flashes. That kind of deal. That defines a "conversation" in your original context?

knowledge of how linguistic statements interact, but none of the phenomenological whatness intended by them — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, this would mean, language is not primarily for utility. At least, it has another significant function. Whether by intent or not.

Sort of like how puns arise. I want a coffee. You sell coffee. I have enough money for a coffee. I ask for one. You serve me one to my hand and the bill at the same time. I say "ouch", perhaps as a reaction to the price of the coffee. A machine would assume this is a reaction to the temperature of the coffee. Or would it? Is this what you mean?

A common definition of knowledge is: "justified true belief." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Justified by who? One's self? One's social circle? One's town, village, or city? Anything greater than that is exclusively a modern phenomena, I'm sure you'd agree.

Is there a "justified false belief" that one would immediately be able to differentiate from a "justified true belief"? How so? What is the significance of the "true" multiplier/descriptor in the context of the overall phrase/other two words?

A belief? Naturally this is the most base, non-enveloping conceptual descriptor to describe such, sure. Would you have any objection if your use of the word "belief" in this context were to be substituted with, say: "opinion", "judgement", "desire", "preference", or "goal". Do you find any of these substitutes more or less fitting or some even outright more accurate or completely incompatible? If so, why?

For instance, a distinction between "knowing that" and "knowing how." Knowing how to ride a bike, for example, does not seem to reduce to propositional knowledge (at least not easily). Its justification is the ability to stay upright on a moving bike, which is not linguistic. It seems possible that someone who has lost their capacity to understand and produce language might nonetheless know the to ride a bike. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, perhaps like the difference between an ability and a skill. One or the other being more or less easy, hard, if not next to or entirely impossible, by simply following written or verbal (or physical) instruction? Perhaps "talent" rising above both the two? What are your thoughts on that?

But I wanted to bring up another sort of knowledge: "knowing what it is like to be." We can consider here Nagel's example of "what it is like to be" a bat and to possess a faculty of echolocation. This might be impossible to know, but it is certainly something I think people would love to know. And if they could remember their time as a bat, we could say they "know what it is like" to have echolocation, and yet this seems to obviously be a sort of knowledge that is non-linguistic, and which doesn't seem to line up with "belief" either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does a man go out to his driveway and ask "Gee, I wonder what it's like to be a car?" Not likely. He turns the key, drives it, and more or less basically gets the idea. Especially if he has to maintain it. The reason I mention this example is because there are video games where you can be things you ordinarily can't: a millionaire, a gang leader, an animal, even a stray cat. Sure, it's not really, exactly the same. But surely any thinking person can "get the idea" at least in a substantial sense. Do you disagree? This reminds me of the classic "qualia" argument, how basically: "two people can watch the same sunset, we can describe it in a physical, optical sense in near identical terms, but neither person can really describe what it's 'like' or 'means' to ones self." Do you feel that to be of relevance or relation?

Loyalty, power dynamics and image outweigh strategy or principle. — Benkei

That moment you realize... all of that IS the strategy and principle... (Hey I don't agree with it, but you pander to your audience. Cheap seats fill faster. Am I wrong?)

anti-elitist — Benkei

So, basically anyone more educated, successful, or for that matter, happier (no not even happy, simply less miserable) than me (not even that, simply a functionally sane and civilized human being in times, places, or situations I simply cannot or will not) is basically/might as well be, the devil. Basically, there's never anything wrong with me, there's simply no logical room for any other case scenario than "that other guy way over there who isn't bothering me and happens to be doing better than me is terrible and is (somehow) at fault". Yeah, sounds about right for the unrefined. :lol:

Very dangerous mindset. Literally why cages were invented. So those whose minds experienced failure to launch don't drag an entire civilization or society down and cause it to disappear or worse.

Great stuff here, BTW. Just following from the rafters is all.

Let's open up the discussion a little bit, for the sake of viability.

How can one believe in a (more so than not) benevolent Higher Power, god, deity, or whatever you will, in a world mired with suffering, cruelty, hatred, and so on?

It's a question men of faith and even honest curiosity have struggled with for Millennia; ages even.

So, first and foremost is to understand the dynamic of which we're trying to discuss. We're talking about the supernatural, that which transcends anything we currently know and perhaps will ever be able to know, understand or experience in this existence. That's the key point to understand here many people fail to grasp. It's illogical, it is, by all observable and known science, irrational. This is where people fail to understand the true nature of an alleged god or divine higher power. When you begin to open up your mind to it, most folks often fall into the "oh so none of this matters, this is basically a simulation" trap and reverse mindset dynamic. This is common. You however seem to be stuck at the gates.

So, let me ask you. Do you believe you, as a person, have something either inside you or I don't know perhaps available to you, that separates you from say, the pigeon that eats out of your hand on a park bench? Beyond your body's physical, anatomical contents. The answer to this question will determine what line of discussion will best suit your needs.

I think she's fine. — fdrake

"Fine" is what you can be okay with calling an itchy souvenir T-shirt or poorly-made pair of swim trunks you had to purchase at an unknown gas station at the last minute because something happened to your original ones.

Politicians, people who make real policy that affects real people and who in fact have our lives and well-being hinged in the balance of their competency and intent need to be more than "fine." They need to be exemplary -- quite literally better men and women then you or I or any average citizen picked at random, otherwise what purpose do they hold?

Can you explicate a little the difference between 'assume' and 'imagine'? — unenlightened

Meant to imply a more 'context'-based reasoning and process of conclusion for a claim as opposed to just a "well I just always imagined it being like that" sort of assessment of a period in time we were absent in that is hundreds of thousands of years senior to our own, is all. I see it really did not however. Thanks. Good catch.

Your former kumbaya-like sarcasm aside, I so far don't find any reason to affirm that my initial assertion was not, generally speaking, spot on. Again, this from what I know regarding what is known at large. — javra

All of this is fine, I just want to make sure we're arguing for or against the same simple claim. That claim (of mine?) being:

Human rights violations (rape, theft, murder, etc.) occurred much more frequently and were of increased severity in earlier times before widespread civilization and modern society, typically affecting the most vulnerable persons or groups of people (in this case, women being part of that category -- whether or not this "vulnerability" is intrinsic and biological or simply a result of the society and its social norms at the time notwithstanding).
--
I'm fairly certain that's correct and the sentiment of "oh it probably wasn't really that bad" just kind of sticks out as non-factual to me. It doesn't to you? Not even a little?

I get what your saying, civility, social cohesion, and "social norms" are not brand spanking new things exclusive to the modern era, per se. But, I would still question your assumption that -- just as even today domestic abuse is rampant, results in serious injury, and even murder, despite us living in a society and world those before us could never even imagine with essentially 90% of the hardships those before us faced now being effectively non-existent -- it wasn't much worse back then and more prevalent (if that is what you imply, which to me seems to be so).

I mean, it's 2025 and in some places in the world, women are having their sexual organs and breasts mutilated/flattened/etc. right now as you read this (by their own families per social custom, not criminals for torture/dehumaniztion/etc.). So that points out even today there's a (presumably lowered/negative) social stigma toward women, so imagine back then. Plus there's always some news article about a gang rape or something if you pay attention to global/int'l news long enough. And that's today. I just don't see how one can rationally assume it wasn't much worse back then, particularly way back then in societies that didn't have law enforcement, standardized education, or basically any sort of social service or humane form of justice let alone any intricate, codified system of laws.

Any particular reason you hold to presume things were any different prior to written history commencing? — javra

Well, for starters. nature itself as can be witnessed today is a pretty brutal if not outright savage environment. One could assume, if we slowly became set apart from this environment, and were once immersed in it knowing nothing but the sort, for how could our lesser evolved predecessors possibly have, things were quite, as they say, savage. Makes sense, no?

The caveman with club in hand knocking over the dame on the head so as to take her back to his cave ... its one of those stories that is more a reflection of the tellers than it is of what actually occurred in prehistoric times. — javra

Really? I mean. Okay. Based on what information? Were you there or something? :lol:

I like your posts but this one is just off the rails, mate. I get we like to imagine the world, past included, as some "better place" crafted in our own benevolent image, but, yeah, where are you getting this information from? Perhaps you simply forgot and omitted the oh-so-forgettable "I imagine" preface in front of your ideal description of the world.

sitting at a desk pools the blood. — DifferentiatingEgg

More Stone Age babble.

Get with the times mate.

What are you in the Stone Age? Right Click (on you desktop) > New > Text Document.

I'm curious, what books? — hypericin

I wouldn't say it's quite out of the realm of possibility javi was merely entranced by words and stories that were, shall we say, a tad less than factual. You'd be surprised how mundane and simple the things are for some to get entertainment from (ie. claiming to be someone else in order to gauge a reaction. philosophers are natural psychologists, though not necessarily ones beneficial to the well-being of humanity..).

If we're going to be so lackluster-ly broad and generic, I suppose the only real response would be: "that you might be wrong."

Would you care to quote specific entries or summaries of entries so one can determine what exactly you're interpreting (or perhaps, if such a thing is possible, misinterpreting) and how it may or may not be relevant to the higher idea or body itself?

If it's a danger to the public, it should be squashed. — frank

What is "the public"? Just, random people and whoever happens to be around? A given municipality or country? The whole world and everyone living in it? That's complicated because countries with miilitarys are by definition a danger to "some public" or at least are liable to be. Maybe not here, but somewhere. Do we just arbitrarily imagine "as long as more than half the 'public' (still not defined) is benefited or harmed by a certain action or inaction " we can determine that a threat. Just because something short-term seems to or even actually does put someone in danger, doesn't mean it's occurrence doesn't prevent a much worse outcome. Like medication that has side effects, for example. If you look at it from a "oh this is a danger, you're hurting me" view because the medication that prevents a fatal infection might make you a little dizzy, tired, or nauseous, at the cost of saving your life, that's an easy point of contention or confusion. Sure we like to think we know all there is to know, but I'm sure you'll agree that kind of attitude and way of thinking has historically led to the start of tremendous amounts of wholesale human suffering. We don't (generally) do things for any other reason than we happened to have thought them to have been the best or wisest most productive or perhaps moral choice at the time. That doesn't mean the opposite is never true or rather never occurs despite our belief and best efforts otherwise.

Authoritarians and such like to use these "obvious truths" that naturally no one would object to, but in reality they can mean vastly different things from what the observer hears and believes to what the actual intent is. See, like that. Obviously, that last statement is true.

Should information warfare be regulated? — petrichor

The problem is people are mostly ignorant, having all they have due to unscrupulous reasons that fly in the face of the society and values they claim to represent all of a sudden. If you live truthfully, what could anyone say to disrupt or take anything from you short of a genuine lie or slander such as "Bob stole my cat". Okay. Where is the cat? But why would I go through the hassle of troubling Bob and violating his rights to search for said cat just because one person out of 8 billion made a claim? It's complicated, it really is.

But that said, just because a person is more educated than you and is successfully convincing (or you deem said person as a threat who will be able to convince) others of something that might result in some sort of monetary or "social" loss (especially one involving something one knows is fraudulent, immoral, or dangerous) doesn't change the act of telling the truth into "information warfare", nor does it criminalize the pursuit and proliferation of wisdom. That's absurd. True authoritarianism. Yet a fact of this world, historically, and perhaps even today, granted. As any philosopher can wholly attest to.

Sure, the moral consequence of being able to yell fire in a theater, for example, is a point of contention. Other examples, say telling a man to cross a bridge you know is dilapidated and will likely result in an injury, or perhaps telling someone who you know has a peanut allergy no such allergen is contained in something when it is, etc. I understand your point is beyond the simple legality of lying to someone, compounded with the "thought that counts" type of philosophy (consequentialism?) that basically would consider someone or something "immoral" if they truly believe what they did or said was the best course of action that in reality was dangerous or foolish and results in the death or injury of anyone who listened or was impacted. More of an intentional, widespread politically motivated operation that has a clear stated goal to "disinform" mass amounts of people (whatever that means)? Disinform from what? That fire is cold and water is hot? Just, silly things to cause random and isolated bubbles of confusion? No, of course not. It would be to chip away at the public opinion on a given leader or society for the specific purpose of causing social unrest, injury, or perhaps some sort of political/governmental change that benefits the person responsible.

I mean, let's be practical. What are some examples? Saying an elected leader is bad? Okay. Can they show evidence? If they can, wouldn't it be of benefit to truth itself and yes the person for them to know? Or saying Country A is bad, corrupt, and a threat to your home and house to sway voters (or soldiers) to take up arms to fight against Country A, whether or not any of those assumptions, claims, and insinuations are true?

It's like religion, somewhat. Or no, let's keep it simple. Let's say "proper food safety guidelines", specifically ensuring hamburgers reach an internal temperature of 165 degrees. The reasoning being it keeps people safe and thus is something not only positive but in this context vital to society, for obvious reasons. I don't think if I eat a hamburger that falls short of the guideline by a single degree and is only 164 degrees I'm going to be hospitalized or die, that's a bit silly. An opponent would logically be able to call "proper food safety guidelines", specifically the 165 degree requirement as misinformation, by pure logical fact, would he not? That doesn't mean said guidelines are not truthful and beneficial if not vital to human beings. There's wiggle room, assuredly.

The core of your question seems to be involved with, at least in some way, determining the intent of an action and declaring it as an organized, hostile political agenda simply because it "looks that way" or otherwise has a similar effect that someone who would do so to intentionally cause unrest or political difficulty or at an extreme a risk to national integrity itself, would do. Basically, if "the goals appear to line up" in an action or series of actions, whether or not there may have been any goals at all. At least, nothing you're aligned with or value as significant or important. Example: I just like chaos and loud noise so I tell everyone something that makes them act that way, nor caring any less about politics or life itself (including my own). That, to my knowledge, while it certainly makes one a less-than-noble person, is perfectly legal. I believe? But should it be, I suppose is your question?

What is a drug, in practical terms, for the purpose of its scheduling in a federal agency, such as the FDA? — Arcane Sandwich

Something that if allowed unfettered access to the average person or child may reasonably result in serious injury, death, or worse, annoyance to those of higher moral value or at minimum, greater intellect.

Kidding. Mostly. Glad to be here.

How can one ensure this is not simply another meta-philosophy topic that is best and greater encumbered by a simple "The ethics of self control vs. indulgence" type of discussion.

Why go the speed limit when I can go 10 miles over?

Why be a good person when others who clearly are not seem to not only walk around with impunity impeded, but on many an occasion succeed and live better lives?

Why do anything one doesn't have to? And to top that, why must one do anything?

So many greater, and again, mostly if not all encompassing avenues and schools of thought come to mind. So, make your case. What differentiates doing/using/willingly becoming under the influence of "drugs" (which you've yet to define, I might add) from any of the aforementioned (and ongoing) philosophical debates?

I could just as easily have used 'we'. You can stop projecting now. — Tzeentch

That's fair but it makes it seem to a person in the heat of debate that you're implying there's some "better" almost "intrinsic" "way of life" you seemingly have been blessed to be under, some deep unyielding freedom that is exclusive to you and only you and those reading should seek to understand or become knowledgeable of.

You can't just pass off these real and valid concerns by using recently-cheapened and now "buzz words" of psychological flavor as if it elevates you above the underlying logic just because it has that affect on the average person. You are not an average person, I can tell, and this is not an average place. Therefore, my sentiment and corresponding concern were both wholly appropriate.

You've been ruled by oligarchs for decade — Tzeentch

But not you somehow? Just, other people, but not you. No, of course not, you're simply too smart for that to have happened. It's simply impossible. Ah, the human ego. As flexible as it is frail. Willing and able to contort itself into positions previously thought unfathomable.

The world's richest dick man is acting unilaterally with apparently zero government oversight, slashing and burning as he sees fit. — Wayfarer

Any system that doesn't have proper safeguards is bound to such a fate, surely? I mean, it'd be foolish to think a vulnerable system would be eternal and never be exploited, wouldn't it? As a religious "good will prevail" type of person I naturally don't believe the worst outcomes you might imagine will ever be allowed to happen. Alas, I'll never be able to prove it. The irony of faith, eh? :grin:

If you don't believe a system was designed to withstand and inevitably survive abuse and the inevitable nature of those who its meant to coalesce with, did you really believe in it at all? :chin: :eyes:

I feel it of at least some relevance to ensure all are aware mankind has absolutely never created life in a laboratory setting from non-life. Electrical stimulation. Introduction of living germs, elements, cells, etc to stimulate a larger organ or organism. But never has he created life. As such, remains truly the unspoken (and in my opinion intentionally, albeit foolishly ignored) great mystery that makes the Hard Problem seem like a cheap scratch-off lottery ticket.

So, while I might be a bit short of your intended point of discussion, the logic (or theory) of those 1,000 or 2,000 years ago does not seem to be without standing or bearing even in 2025. That is to say, has not yet to be disproved.

Excellent OP. — Banno

Well the standards for a proper, valid, and lasting OP on TPF have to be fairly excellent as a bare minimum per the rules so let's not get carried away. Superfluous praise truly helps no one, certainly not the praisee.

Our beliefs are tested against the world, not against competing conceptual schemes. — Banno

This, while hard to refute as anything less than relevant, has a few points of contention I feel you'd agree are wholly reasonable to address. "The world", as many would perceive, is not truly "the world." It's how people have made society and thus an illusion of comparison to some sort of absolute everlasting state that both has been and would be without social engineering or otherwise, any other person living on it. One cannot truly "test their beliefs" against the "world" unless in an enclosed, isolated environment where either the individual (or group of like-minded individuals) are free to do so in an environment truly their own without any sort of influence or control by external factors. This cannot be done unless in some sort of socially and technologically barren or isolated landscape, which is virtually non-existent to the vast majority of persons.

We are social beings, meaning, to an extent, we're socially-engineered to be noticeably different or "set apart" from "the world" around us. Wherever people manage to thrive, that is solely because of artificial (or non-organic) creation of society and civilization. In short, society or groups of people and nations especially are in fact unique from "the world", per se. Each are furthermore in fact in competition, otherwise, armies and borders would not exist. So, there's basically nowhere on Earth you could go that is not socially engineered or given an artificial set of "what works vs. what doesn't" by those who live and place their identity under what eventually is little more than a competing social (ie. conceptual) scheme.

Basically, our beliefs "can", in theory, be tested against the "world", truly. It's not impossible. But realistically in 99% of cases never truly are, and simply are in fact tested against by what, by all irrefutable logical definition is in fact, a competing conceptual (specifically, social) scheme.

Let's say it's 1,000 years ago and you go to a never-visited island with a population of a few dozen people. That's you testing your beliefs against the world. But not really. Because they have made the region or reality you, in that moment, are confined to, as their own. No different than preaching the general belief in "equality" to a town of slave-owners. The "world", per se, has nothing to do with it. You're in a constructed society or region where the law, no matter how just or injust, is the only thing you're reasonably competing against ie. that provides resistance or response, at least, overshadows anything else by pure social will or force.

Ultimately, the only thing you're testing your beliefs against is that of others who have made a certain world, geography, region, or society, according to their conceptual belief, which by nature is in fact a competing one.

So, I disagree with the quoted statement above as some sort of 100% "happens all the time" absolute where a claim of the opposite would be, seemingly according to your wording, invalid.

--

But in general, while I've never (to my recollection) read a word of the individual in question, giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and respect that he understands what the individual (Davidson) claims, and has the ability to recite it for us, I feel it appropriate to respond to that as one and the same.

In other words, I don't think I have to prove that spiders have experiences before I can tentatively believe that they're incommensurable to mine. Do I? — frank

This is interesting. What is the compelling or jarring factor that makes a spider different from one's own? Is it the size? The (so-called) scientific awareness of its ability (or lack thereof) to perceive the world (at least, in comparison to one's own)? Or something beyond? Surely one can imagine being kidnapped and placed in a hypothetical mansion where everything is say, equivalent to the difference in scale to the size of a spider vs. a human, perhaps 1000x the size of what a person is accustomed to? And then what? If we believe the spider has a conscious, a mind, a medium to process its surroundings to the point of a larger, more-intelligent picture, though perhaps not to the same degree, naturally, we have a reasonable avenue to contend the claim in one way or another. Otherwise, surely. It's just a spider, it doesn't know anything, it just "does". So which do we attest as more likely, and why?

Like, all of this is great and such (not really). But at the end of the day, each person is a Fascist by nature. Man is a domineering being. He simply would have perished under the harsh dominion and nature of either: the beasts of this world or unforgiving climate or propensity for food scarcity be it by season or event or what have you if he was not. He simply evolved (slightly) to realize what his predecessor failed to. Eventually, you'll discover you're wrong, and it placed you in a situation you have seemingly no choice but to act violently to change or escape from. This was the sole reality of the first man. Now, modern man realizes, or perhaps is forced to recognize, there's always going to be someone either A.) stronger or B.) smarter than you no -- no matter what you do. To an extent, a government has to deprive man of his primal need to use force. Not his right. But simply replace the daily and consistent part of his primal being that once defined his essence. You couldn't just walk down a street or send your kid to your neighbor's house or to the local library for half a day without a care in the world. It would've been a death sentence. But he'll never realize the sheer, jarring, shocking degree of how far society has yielded, not to the will or dominion of another, but to his very own as a result of alleviation of his burden of force to that of a higher and accountable governing power. Because, despite how far we've come, men will be men. And must always be kept in check.

It's the fact that out of the hundreds of other nations that go unreported and are globally acknowledged to not have the level of accountability of Western nations, the only concern, the one tired re-occurring theme, is the only nation that does have fair accountability and open press gets the whipping treatment. Such comedic scrutiny and lack of coherence transcends words like "pathetic" or "blatant" but truly shows what is wrong with a world that tries (and I assure you will ultimately fail) to sweep it's own inhumanity under a rug or keep it's closeted skeleton's undiscovered.

Fascism is everywhere. Wherever man lives, there will be fascism. It just so happens in this case, the only place it's allowed to be called out by those weak or strong, rich or poor, is under scrutiny. It's a joke. That's what it is, a tired joke those set to ending mankind's suffering has grown tired of and instinctively ignores. That's all.

Elon Musk is a fraud. I’m not surprised by the dupes who buy that he’s a genius. — Mikie

So... you've met the guy before? At least seen him with your own eyes in front of you at some point to know he even exists or ... I mean, where is this so-called information coming from? :chin:

We are on the same page when you think morality is subjective. — MoK

I never claimed to believe anything of the sort. Simply, to the best of my ability, offered an explanation why your claim to such is open to reasonable scrutiny and certainly doesn't quite meet the threshold of "reasonable fact" or "common knowledge", in my opinion. Sure, a word is bound to its definition. That doesn't mean, like in real life situations, the letter of the law can often defeat the spirit of the law, which any well educated person would contest as a mockery of justice and law itself.

Morality cannot be objective if good and evil are subjective. — MoK

Opinion is not fact. That's the main point of contention here. Yes, you believe and feel and perhaps even engross such into your entire being to the point of your sole reality, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to absolute reality. No different than how the mindless bum on the corner reeling and withdrawing from drug use believes a random passerby is a monster or government agent trying to kill him. As you said, experience is subjective. Morality is not- otherwise, why waste time trying to pinpoint the borders or X, Y, Z coordinates of something that you admit to be fleeting and without borders, boundaries, or definition?

There has to be at least one concept that is pinpointed, absolute, and clearly-defined, otherwise we're just rambling about what color is best or not when you think about it.

My point is that our experiences of what is good or evil are different. Good and evil are features of our experiences. I say something is good when it is pleasurable to a person otherwise it is evil. As I noted we are different when it comes to good and evil. For example, murder is evil to the majority of people. However, some people have pleasure from killing therefore killing to them is good. I hope that makes sense to you. If not please let me know so I can elaborate further. — MoK

Sure, people have different views, beliefs, and opinions. That's more or less common knowledge or sense. It's just words, though. You can call something that brings you "pleasure" either "good", "bad", "weird", "strange", or even "pineapple" if you please. That doesn't make it anything of the sort, of course. It's just you using words (that may or may not exist) that you feel happen to best fit. No relevance to anything, really, let alone philosophical concepts.

No need to elaborate, your point is solid and correct, simply, it's relevance to philosophy or greater logical progression is perhaps not as "involved in anything" as you may believe.

You experience the rose. — MoK

What would stop one from say, comparing viewing the text of your reply (whether the viewer is fluent in the language of the text or not) as a similar "experience". There's a world of difference between processing sensory information and taking note of (or perhaps choosing to focus exclusively on) the emotions or feelings or otherwise change in mind or mood vs. truly "experiencing" something. Or is there not? Perhaps that's your point?

That there are an infinite number of numbers is the central property of infinity. — an-salad

I mean, we don't really know that. There could be a hidden bug or undiscovered mechanism in the Universe that if man ever recites or computes a certain threshold of number repetition and depth everything explodes and reality folds in on itself. It's technically possible as one cannot accurately, and with any sort of absolute certainty, describe a journey or occurrence one has never been on or experienced.

Also, If everyone only did work that they “loved and believed in” civilization would collapse in a week. — an-salad

That's an issue of upbringing and education and little else.

Also also, does god actively give little kids inoperable brain cancer, or does he just let them get it and then sit back and watch while it slowly kills them? This isn’t rhetorical, I’m actually lookng for an answer. — an-salad

No. Man was given laws to follow including responsible reproduction. Essentially to only have done so when permitted by a society's elders and ruling authorities. Said laws were ignored. At that point, as far as the things you describe: "that's all you bro". At least, that is the logical answer if one considers popular religious scripture to be non-fictitious, which per reasonable assumption, appears to be an innate stipulation of your inquiry.

The tree which strives towards heaven must send its roots to hell. — Bob Ross

This one gave me a chill.

Needing a knife that is sharper than a knife is a sign of irrationality. — Bob Ross

Yet this one escapes me.

--

These few seem to be incredibly useful for 98% of people alive:

• Ridicule from those on a path which I do not wish to follow is praise.
• It can only harm you if it manages to damage your character—remember that.
• If one wants something they’ve never had, then they must do something they’ve never done.
• Fear is a mile wide, but only an inch deep.
• What you are too afraid to overcome, becomes your limitations.
• Suffering is a choice.

It can basically be it's own 6-tenet religion.

(though I perhaps would have worded that last one as: "Pain is not a choice, suffering is." -- just to give it some context that might be otherwise easily missed or dismissed)

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others. They are people who care about politics and the arts. They are writers. They are introspective and educated. Usually highly educated. They want the world changed in one way or many ways. — Rob J Kennedy

A reasonable analysis, but bear in mind not everyone who has become accustomed to solitude (or "loneliness" as you put it) or who finds peace in such "prefers to be alone", per se (ie. an only child growing up in a rural or unsafe neighborhood or who otherwise wasn't generally allowed to "roam about" like most, etc).

For me, it probably has a bit more to do with "being right" and outsmarting those around me than I'd like to admit. Personally, I was always fascinated with science, discovery, not so much reading but definitely facts, creativity, and mastery (or at least knowledge) of the world around me. I liked watching "smart kid" shows like "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius" and writing down all the interesting "discoveries", facts, and "inventions" thinking I could one day do them myself. Reading "Ripley's Believe it or Not" was a fun time as well. I like to think it was because it "challenged the world as I knew it" but, it's just as likely it was, as my former English professor would say, I'm "easily impressed (entertained)". Just me and my Itty Bitty book light and I was transported into a world all my own for hours at a time completely immersed in an always new and ever-changing world of possibility, particularly on long car rides.

It was fun at a young age to make those around you, particularly persons of authority (teachers, pastors, and of course my own dear parents) think or second-guess themselves or otherwise just pay greater attention to you, which was its own reward in its own right, even if it did get on their nerves at times. Grew up as an only child with what I'd have to say was an unusually large amount of solitude and time to myself. You definitely come up with ways to entertain yourself mentally. I didn't get into actual philosophy until my late teens, however. Not really sure why. Probably an older cousin of mine. Always reading Nietzsche and that one Russian guy. Super fun to be around, always had something interesting to say. Perhaps I just wanted to be a bit more like him and a bit less like myself at that time in life. Could be partly due to the media and social expectation (the "wise respected elder" in movies, getting rewarded with praise and stuff for good grades in school along with the opposite for the inverse, etc.); always wanted to be a well-to-do, scholarly sophisticate when I grew up. Just seemed like that's the way people were supposed to be.

I also didn't really like secrets or the idea of not knowing things those older or in authority knew and not only kept but would regularly joke about to themselves (but not I) while in my presence as if I wasn't there. Especially the way they would almost gleefully flaunt such knowledge in the form of verbal sentiment such as "It's a grown up thing" or "That's not for children" or "You'll understand when you're older", etc. I just wanted to know what was so funny or so terrible about something that seemed to not be any sort of big deal or make any sense to me at the time. Why I would get in trouble, why saying this word or doing this thing is bad but not the other all while not really giving me a satisfactory answer in my fledgling mind. I guess I also didn't like being wrong or outsmarted in front of people. Oh, the overbearing shame! Even at such a tender age. Ah, to be the lad who always knew just what to say, to be consistently looked up to as wise, funny, or what have you. Never a truer feeling of bliss felt; social acceptance.

That's what I would say were some contributing factors to my personal interest in philosophy and "intellectual pursuit" in general, without giving it more than a few minutes of thought, at least. I'm weird though so I wouldn't read too far into it. Each person is different, as are their specific desires and motivations behind such. Somewhat, at least. :smile:

Knock knock.

Deep question. Or is it? I suppose one may find an answer by asking: what is "ugly?" That which does not conform. So, if this is correct, beauty would have to be, that which conforms; that which is expected. Yet not quite. A blank sheet of paper conforms perfectly. To itself. So perhaps, beauty might be "that which affirms one's expectations." Does that seem about right? I'm sure by now we've all heard the old saying in regards to beauty.

Sure, historically speaking, unexplained natural phenomena was often considered "magic" or the work of gods or deities. There are places on Earth where this is still so. If someone (gods forbid) entered one of these primitive societies with say, a used lighter from their glove box and produced flame without the traditional known methods required for doing so, he or she might then be considered some sort of flame deity for example, or perhaps the item itself a sacred instrument from wherever that society believes man (or who or what created man) came from or goes after he perishes.

I read an article once that comes to mind about "magical thinking", basically stating that if a supernatural being performs a "miracle" or supernatural act, it's because the atoms around or involving the act or object are changed accordingly in a nature that would produce such an effect, as opposed to say, your "tiny invisible fairies" metaphor.

Point being, the difference between what would be considered "real magic" and simple unexplained phenomena is that there would in fact be something supernatural (something not known to science that also breaks its established laws) being the driving force behind whatever molecular changes are occurring, as opposed to just some new tech nobody heard of.

For example, if science was forced to explain "karma", or one's good and bad deeds resulting in good or bad consequences absent of human intervention respectively, one theory would be, say, a hypothetical supercomputer in space with technology currently unknown that scans the entire Earth inside and out constantly and observes any intelligent being's actions, logging said being's DNA in the process. From there, it processes whether the act was "good or bad" and attaches that finding to his or her DNA file. Then, later, perhaps randomly, or perhaps even to one's next generation, applying an action that either rewards or punishes said individual, such as say, giving a murderer or son of a murderer early blindness or ensuring a good person survives an otherwise fatal incident, say, through use a currently unknown method of altering the atoms or cells from a distance, similar to how a non-contact thermometer reads temperature or a microwave ray heats an object or an MRI shows the inside of a human body. All the aforementioned objects use invisible forces that travel a notable distance to either alter matter or provide information about said matter without physically interacting with it. Point being, while the idea of that would sound absurd if one had to go by known science, it would still be hypothetically possible, thus removing the idea of "magical thinking" from something generally thought of as supernatural.

difference between philosophy and religion — MrLiminal

In religion, per the stereotype, the part of one having to actually think is removed. More generously put: a conclusion has already been reached based on fixed guidelines, none of which can be changed nor does any deep thought on any particular one produce any benefit; it's up for the practitioner to either accept or reject a given religion. I suppose this can be likened to say, consequentialism, which in a similar format offers a single premise and attempts to make the case as to why say, the opposite is false.

to a person who has “experienced” a ghost, they have experienced magic. — MrLiminal

One might prefer to call a ghost supernatural or supernatural phenomenon as opposed to the ghost itself being "magic" or a manifestation of such. Magic is supernatural, but not all things supernatural necessarily have to be magical.

Religions also often hate when you try to then use science to figure what does and does not work for sure and why what does work works, which is another place religion tends to disappoint me. — MrLiminal

From what I understand most religions tend to have, as a central tenet, a figure (or figures) that exist outside of the laws of the world we live in ie. God creating the world supernaturally, an angel speaking through a donkey, etc. This, by scientific standards, is simply not logical. But. Taking part of your theory, science would attempt to explain this (if it had to) by parallel or multi universe theory. They would both be backwards compatible and in theory could peacefully co-exist in the same reality. Like the above hypothetical on how karma and science could, in theory, be compatible, however unlikely. Fun read, very interesting to ponder and respond to.

Differences irreconcilable. Would we all agree? How unfestive.

(PM me personally if you feel such matters need to be discussed further)