when a therapist helps a patient they are doing so because it is their job to help them, and not because they are care — Wheatley

Not necessarily. Some people entered the profession because they were impacted by untreated mental illness in their own personal lives, not to say themselves but perhaps a family member or friend who ended up harming themselves or others.

And at the end of the day, nobody has actually cared about the mentally sick however much help they get — Wheatley

I don't think you would know that for certain. Sure after a while and depending on the severity it can start to see like there's no one "there" so to speak and your efforts are being wasted when they could be helping others only mildly afflicted.

How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

Arguably, somewhat less. You can read a book to an audience with the same (albeit feigned) excitement and dramatic tone as someone who wrote the book for the audience without much effort. There's no reason you can't follow your training as a therapist and intuition just because you'd be rather be doing something else, granted it does make it liable that in your training and education you either slacked or rushed or otherwise didn't get as much as you could have from it otherwise. So it's circumstantial and more a trifecta of competency, duty, and passion than any one. You can be the most caring guy in the world but if someone who really doesn't want to be there right now happens to be able to discern more subtleties and most important offer more effective solutions than the caring guy well, no harm no foul it would seem.

Genuine kindness? No, but it can reward it (eg. so and so receives many positive reviews therefore it makes sense to consider so and so for more hours or perhaps even a promotion, customers like so and so and as a result is good for business). What it can introduce however is patience and professionalism in an individual. You don't go to a place of business for "kindness" you go for a latte or maybe a designer phone case. You don't need them to be kind you need them to facilitate your purchase of a product or service without being intolerably rude. This is what salaries are for.

Some jobs are different of course. Social work, elderly care, nursing, teaching, therapy. It's not a perfect world. Fortunately abuse is often reported and reviews can be left by clients that can sometimes offer enough information to go by.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

Investment. Time is money. When people find out their stocks are worthless, well, I'm reminded of the movie Highlander. Or Wall Street executives who discover the same. We have evolved to safeguard whatever ingrained mental beliefs, patterns, mannerisms, etc. that have allowed us to survive for a considerable time. It only makes sense, doncha know?

Not in the context of your example but yes. Otherwise live births would resemble a horror movie. Even more so that is.

To your point though, it's not so much about weakness or strength in the traditional physical sense. If a volcano erupts and a pack of 1,000 pound grizzly bears share an adjacent forest with a flock of birds that weigh a tenth of a ounce, who would you wager will be the survivor and who bites the dust? See, didn't think of that now did you.

I am not sure if you are trying to make a point by being sarcastic or if you are being sincere? I suspect what you said is based on misogyny and that you were not being sincere. Am I right? — Athena

I'm being superfluously expressive.

Are you really going to sit there and call a man admitting a woman is the most important part of the household if not humanity altogether misogynistic? Are you serious? Now I'm being angry if not concerned, or morbidly amused. How is that OK with you? Can you not see the larger picture?

Please read my profile, it explains essentially the answer to your question — schopenhauer1

I have, and it does. But perhaps not in the way you might think. It'll be taken care of in due time.

I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.. — schopenhauer1

Funny? That sounds entertaining, aka enjoyable. Who are you trying to fool here.

That's a velocitous point (the Jack and Jill thing) but easily refuted by the counter-argument that since as you say things are undesirable, Jack sometimes settles for Jane instead of Jill for multiple reasons perhaps lack of education, dire circumstance, desperation, ignorance, you can take your pick. If you get the metaphor, which I'm sure you do. So, back to my original question which perhaps is already answered, what needs to be changed? I suppose the stock question would be, if you were God and wish to make this possible, suffering free world to your hearts content and your minds eye, what would have to happen? What would it be like? How would it differ from now?

I have focused less on this core philosophy lately because I think there are simpler ideas like the injustice of putting more people into an inescapable game, and inevitable harmful experiences that can and should be argued for. No amount of economic or political change overrides the negative existential situation itself. The animal with the pendulum between pain, boredom always needing that pendulum to get in the middle somewhere but it never stays.. as Schopenhauer analogized. — schopenhauer1

It's a nice analogy. Yet we still seem to be deviating or at least dismissing (which if you choose to admit and broadcast will result in utter failure of any alleged important goal) the fact that some people like how it is, the good and the bad, the give and take, the uncertainty. That's great that you don't and see yourself as some person above those who disagree with you who must achieve this conquest for a greater good us ignorant and blind animals could never understand, but again I ask a simple question: who are you to think so let alone do so in a life you claim to be negative and worthless? And more importantly why should others listen to you? You have to have some worth and positivity from somewhere, even if you choose to ignore it.

NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! — Athena

Just a housewife? Oh.. oh wow. My dear lady, with all due respect have you gone mad? What greater role is there in human development than the role of a constantly present and nurturing mother? Not more than I can think of- save for oxygen perhaps. Oh my dear, you have it all wrong. The woman is not confined but enshrined in the most important role a man has in his life, the future of his offspring and legacy. My dear, please. Have a cup of tea, and relax.

@schopenhauer1, what, in your own words and opinion, is the root cause of the suffering that you seem makes life unjust, other humans or nature?

In philosophy we find avenues which in the end bear no fruit — Tobias

You're not entertained? Occupied at least? Doesn't entertainment bring happiness or at least contentment? Doesn't this advance (or at least as you say bear fruit of evidence of the advancement of) the human condition and well being? Is this not the point of science?

Actually now that I read this again, you are just saying, things are futile in the long run.. The vanity of existence, etc. — schopenhauer1

No, no. Not quite. Just that as even a man of eternal prestige and power has to question his own beliefs, perhaps so should you. At least, that your own may not be as infallible and unquestionable as you may believe.

I'm not defending it because I think — schopenhauer1

Exactly. And let's be honest how many times have your thoughts resolved to anything of use. Just kidding. :razz:

But seriously, just because you think of an idea that resolves or otherwise manifests itself as concrete and measurable affect in the real world, what makes you think it's anything less than transient? Caesar ushered in what is arguably the basis of modern society, reliable agriculture via advanced irrigation, popularized indoor washrooms, and not the least of which that allows us to communicate to and fro now, a more or less open and democratic system of government. And now, his former stomping grounds are either in ruins and/or being quite literally defecated upon by invaders. Not the most powerful counterargument to your original suggestion of the futility or cruelty of life at first glance sure, but just an opportunity for some introspection to your own views.

Wanting the unjust situation doesn't make it magically unjust. — schopenhauer1

But who are you to call something clearly the majority of people enjoy (seeing as they don't check out) 'unjust' in the absolute sense, as in the eyes of any other than your own? Lots of people enjoy life. It's not your place to decide that life is "too dangerous" to be lived. What on Earth makes you think you could place such definitive and absolute definitions on something no person has even yet to adequately explain?

I am sure many a slave master wanted to keep slavery. Doesn't make it right. Their "right" to want slavery is negated. — schopenhauer1

This only furthers my point, you deny the option that some people appreciate the way things are, more often than not. Who are you to dictate that pleasure is not worth the pain? An individual? Sure, that's fine then, for you, as an individual. But please, let others choose.

The ultimate argument is not lost, in a scenario when possible outcomes are liable to be worse than a guaranteed positive, you call that unwarranted, unwise, or cruel. That's reasonable enough. You're not a gambling man. Yet, like we continue to ignore, or at least shy away from admitting, if you care so much about ending suffering by ending all life on Earth, you can't (at least it's extremely unlikely that you will) do that in the span of a single lifetime. So, it's kind of a self-defeating philosophy, really.

To be fair, life as a sandbox where the ultimate pleasure and ultimate torment can be experienced simultaneously (as arguably the two are ultimately intertwined), can be indescribably horrible. But are there not tender, glorious, at least pleasantly tolerable moments that your philosophical rampage against life denies those who would otherwise never have the opportunity or choice? Maybe another person doesn't mind a bit of pain, even disproportional for the pleasure they experience. It's easy to think you can make a choice for other people when you think you can, and even easier when you really can, but is it right? This is the real direction of the discussion I think is being avoided. And as I stated it's not clear cut. You are not only denying the right of but also discriminating against the sadist masochist, which according to some I sexually identify as apparently.

In what world does, "Do not have kids" count as philosophically abstract? Pretty concrete to me. — schopenhauer1

So basically you actively have a vasectomy or are otherwise willfully abstinent. That's cool. Just don't try to come at me with your legal papers and ribbons to mandate the same.

It's kind of of ironic almost. By not ensuring your most deeply held belief is prolonged beyond the span of your own life by facing your fear or perhaps crossing into your taboo, you ensure and seal the fate that it will never happen. I wish I had the time to write a novel, this is as good as it gets. Pure gold.

a simple, unremarkable life — Satyesu

Would you prefer a complicated one? Praise and admiration from people you don't know? Or is it a powerful legacy that demands respect alongside a treasure trove of earnest-enough-gotten gains? The sands of time spare very few. Even Caesar, who conquered a large portion of the world, now only lives in the form of internet memes mocking his violent death, and a lackluster salad.

No perhaps I'm assuming again. You care not for recognition of your deeds only for the sorely needed example and influence it could bring, you care not for recognition of your talent other than to enrich, benefit, or entertain as many as possible. The idea of leaving the world a better place ignites a fire in your heart and soul, an adamant gaze of fierce determination in your eyes. The joys, praise, and affluence that come with fame mean absolutely nothing to you for know at the deepest level these things are mere transient distractions from the larger goal, which is the constant state of acknowledgement that you, did something that uplifted and changed the lives of many. They all start that way, yet more often than not, they all end the same. Good luck.

Because in one instance (the antinatalist), no new person is put in an unjust (and harmful) situation. In the other instance a new person is put in an unjust and harmful situation. As my example of the happy slave shows, you can have unjust situations despite people's subjective reporting post-facto. — schopenhauer1

What if we're all actually reincarnated from a truly worse place, and this is sort of our proving grounds to see if we've learned our lesson, plus a few legacy punishments here and there, we simply just don't remember it by divine power yet the nature that originally damned us, rather that led to the actions that did, remain ie. our vices, bad habits, negative inclinations, etc. and the point of this life is to overcome them to truly escape this 'unjust and harmful' situation, one that can not be escaped, perhaps even perpetuated by simply not having kids. Sure you or I don't know that, but not long ago a young man just like you looked out toward the edge of an ocean shore and dismissed the possibility of anything beyond what he could see too. We'll call him Frederick. Please don't be Frederick.

A father reassuring his child is trruly important at the scale of the child, but will be insignificant to, let's say, a tribe in South America, or to the Sun, or to Andromeda — Hello Human

What significance is there to an entire Universe with nothing sentient or capable of appreciating it. A tiny smiley face drawn on a cup of coffee in a barren wasteland between the last two survivors of an interplanetary war is worth infinitely more than an entire galaxy devoid of emotional intelligence or that one thing we humans often seldom dish out yet begrudgingly love to receive- compassion.

Of course, the words of another are open to scrutiny, and provided the speaker provides or at least doesn't restrict the listener from looking into not just the validity of the claim but the character of the claimee him or herself, at least as a reasonable reference (ie. if you don't practice what you preach why should another), only then can we reach higher understanding Or at least not be entrapped by the oh-so-familiar cycle of ignorance, as is often the case of those who hold dogmas, be they scientific or religious, above the greater sense of wholeness, harmony, and what simply feels right when one is not beleaguered by the ills of the world we have unleashed on ourselves out of failing to consider all things, including that which we do not know.

Of course nobody wishes for their marriage to fail, to experience a fatal or debilitating incident, or to fall into severe addiction or substance abuse, but these things happen, and more often than you might think. So where do we go from there. Somewhere is better than nowhere in this case.

I'll be the first to agree with the notion we want safety nets for the genuinely downtrodden and severely ill-fortuned to avoid becoming a fluffy mattress for the lazy and willfully inept, simply for the sake of those who actually need or deserve it and basic decency as a whole, but that doesn't mean we just throw the baby out with the bathwater all willy nilly like. No system is perfect, there will be faults and flat out abuses, especially as safeguards and the like are fine-tuned.. and threats properly assessed, which takes time. After all, you won't know how to fix something you didn't build until it reaches a less than ideal state. Stress test, throwing a wrench into the works to see what happens, burning the village to save it, sometimes these are all things that must be done. Not always. But for fledgling creations such as American democracy, and even most other things, if you don't do it, somebody else will.

I see religion as cover for a lot of human nastiness. — Wheatley

What differentiates a religion created by somebody else or that simply doesn't feature an intelligent designer from your own? Lack of organized religion is still a religion if it follows dogmas or truths, sure many tenets of your belief are proven, though I doubt you've ever witnessed many, by experimentation, but so were those of others by miracles, the difference between the two is that they are non-repeatable- at least on a whim. You wake up every morning, follow a similar enough routine, and filter all conceivable information through your own unique and (one would assume) stable and consistent mindset and furthermore prefer to socialize and coalesce with people of similar belief. How is this different from a devout man of faith? Sure, you don't believe in something that hasn't been proven and according to some cannot be, at least at this time. Imagine if every scientist was like you, afraid or as I'm sure you'll reply simply uninterested in proposing something new and extreme, even just to yourself in your own mind, that would benefit humanity and explain that which is currently a mystery, something the majority would doubt or even scoff or laugh at. We'd have no theories, no electricity, no architecture. Faith and hope creates all these things, and it is nary your position nor privilege to discourage others in whatever brings the aforementioned alive and into the lives and habits of others.

You simply don't like other people's religion or beliefs, and you would make laws and even fight, kill, and die to promote this religion not only in your own land but worldwide, would you not? Two peas in a pod. Isn't it beautiful. The problem comes when those with non-traditional religions (no intelligent creator, there's nothing beyond what we see and if it doesn't sit well with you or can't be proven in front of a large enough majority to discredit your belief and as a result life choices and perhaps even worth, it's just crazy) allow hypocrisy to enter the arena and begin disallowing or forbidding the free thought and ideas or experimentation of others in place of their own. It's the same thing. More often that not, argument for argument, pound for pound.

You know what a liar or fraud is don't you. It's the oldest trick in the book. Leave a common marking or signature "item" or reasonable evidence of a person or people you wish to frame at the scene of your own crime, then just sit back and enjoy. Tsk tsk, give humanity more credit.

For the record I have no doubt, at least in the likelihood, that the majority of powerful individuals of influence, whether they claim to be religious or are involved in religion or not are corrupt and should be held accountable and replaced when appropriate.

In a universe where everything is ineffectual does this make moments precious and worthy of reverence — Benj96

It didn't until I happened upon two omniscient fortune tellers in this thread who know all that was, is, and ever will be, as well as being intimately acquainted with the entirety of the universe. Can't say I've ever ventured that far. That's pretty encouraging really. It's like God is with us.

There is some good in this world, but it's not worth fighting for. — baker

Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument.

You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same.

Who said the two are mutually exclusive?

The idea of man being set apart from the animals by an intelligent non-human creator (or at least the existence of such a being) is hardly a traditional Christian concept exclusively. And after all, as a non-believer, is that not really all a soul is? The life of an animal may be a life, but with hardly any introspection at all, becomes quite purposeless, futile even- at least compared to the ambitions men dream of. No need to rob us all of our humanity and drive with this myopic pseudo-intellectual resignation to explore and dream that is atheism.

Besides, the driving factor would be a soul is not like an appendix. You might need it one day. Sure "you don't know for sure" may be a weak argument in most discussions, but against the backdrop of the unexplained mystery that is life and the universe becomes quite valid, let alone powerful.

I don't think anyone is really pro-work, just pro-civility. Let alone the examples of how one used to obtain something they want or desired.. what if you were the only human being on an untouched version of Earth, Adam in the Garden, we'll say. Or even here and now if every other human being suddenly disappeared. Nobody to compete with, disadvantage, create lost opportunities for, harm, what have you.

Food is not going to just rain down from the heavens and into your mouth, will it? Shelter isn't going to manifest itself as you need it, nor will it repair itself, even if you're fine with a cave you still have to search for one. What if it becomes too hot or too cold or arid or flooded? What will you defend yourself against the beasts of the Earth with and who will make and repair it? You can't avoid work with any economic model real or imagined. Life as a game or otherwise not worth living is far from a new concept, though any biases can be identified by a truthful answer to a simple question: Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat?

why are we incapable of deliberately switching on all the senses when we daydream to produce an experience indistinguishable from reality itself — TheMadFool

Come to think of it that sounds horrific. Imagine if someone suffered from PTSD flashbacks from a painful, violent incident but instead of just severe anxiety also felt the same physical pain as well.

Some people are so familiar with certain sensations they can "almost feel" them with enough thought, say the sand between our toes or the warm sun on your skin. Or even simply reading a very well-written (or at least chock full of superfluous adjectives and nauseating detail) paragraph describing a texture. Not aware of the technical biologic details as to why or why not other than to say that's just not how a properly functioning human brain works, and for good reason.

mind-generated silumations are done in halves - some senses are not activated — TheMadFool

Compare it to a dream. If it was just as real (sensory identical) or perhaps of a longer duration than what you define as not a simulation, you'd have a whole new set of questions.

Interestingly enough I've had many dreams that at least at one point or another all senses, in the moment of having them, realized dreaming or not, were activated, and that outlier is the sense of smell. Pain, sight and hearing naturally. Touch.. hm? Not quite. I dream often and remember, albeit vaguely many if not most of them, never having a single dream where I physically "felt" (as in feeling a texture) or "smelled" something. Curious, I suppose. Taste, only partially. I've noted unique (similar enough) tastes to food or beverage consumed in dreams, though without the savor. Perhaps, dreams are a window into Hell. Or to be more upbeat, somewhere greater where we are no longer dictated by satisfying our woefully outdated evolutionary wants and needs.

What gives? — TheMadFool

You're not dangerously insane. There's little to be said beyond that.

I suppose to pad the reply some, of all senses we possess sight and visuals are probably the most consequential and profound of the human experience. Sure, smell is useful to discern wildfires or when food has gone (really) bad, hearing is useful to discern loud (typically powerful, dangerous) happenings as well as communicate, but for all the threats to the human body that can be detected and avoided with the other four senses, there are at least two more that can be done with sight. Not all perfectly overlap of course. But why else are we such vain creatures? Museums, designer phone cases, covers, above all visual-based attraction. We don't have "smellatoriums" that are packed with people and their families day in and day out smelling unique scents. Sure, we appreciate a fragrance that is to say to replace/mask a neutral or malodorous one, but we rarely "seek it out" just to do so. We don't have "feelatoriums" where people rub furry walls and various textures all day for the fun of it. We throw people like that in mental institutions. Sure, you'd rather touch something smooth and silky than a jagged piece of metal but again, actually going out of your way to do so gives you weird stares.

Edit: There's just so much more information that can be communicated and yes experienced with sight. We don't have streaming services that you and a friend or your family gather around and "smell" various smells for an hour and a half. You don't call up your mates or have grandma flown in from Rochester to touch a Home Depot carpet sample booklet for hours on end. Granted audio and hearing makes a large part of the modern cinematic experience but silent movies passed the time then just fine and if given the opportunity will do so now.

A never-ending meal of infinite courses that one can enjoy without any physical sense or sensation.

\

There are other options of course- don't put people into the game in the first place. However, you are right in the sentiment that once born, there are no other options but to play SOME economic game. The game itself doesn't matter. The injustice of having to play ANY economic game is what I'm interested in. That is brought about from the condition of birth, which is my biggest concern as that is the first injustice. Everything else follows. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps someone who's not you doesn't view life and it's benefits, rewards, and yes as you obsess over it's negatives, drawbacks, and moments of torment as a 'game' but something greater? I'd wager many non-theists would agree with me and others as this fact being relevant enough to spur religion itself now, wouldn't you?

Yeah but there's just something almost ethereal, mystical even about a sentence or piece of literature that you can ascertain completely different yet equally profound meanings from by simply reading them once more.

Regrettably I'm unable to come up with one after a few seconds but when these aren't unintentional, they're the cream of the crop as far as literature goes in my view. Unintentional ones often become the butt of jokes (ie. "Disneyland Left" joke) or even the subject of legends (ie. "Pardon Impossible To be sent to Siberia"). Not just simple metaphors or profane and juvenile double entendres or 'squeezing blood from a stone' as it were, rather true literary craftsmanship dripping with wisdom. It's becoming rarer and rarer these days. For example, I've yet to think of or even recall one.. though it may just be the lateness of the hour.

Not a big deal really not being in contact with people for a few hours but what if the entire internet shut down for a day? — Benj96

You realize it costs around 50 cents to make a simple phone call to just about anyone anywhere in the world at just about any payphone, right? Let alone your own cell or landline. I'm assuming you mean a true communication blackout which would be just short of a true blackout of all electricity. In places that experience severe weather such blackouts are common. Long story short, not only can your selfies and food porn wait, it will probably benefit every individual involved as well as mankind as a whole.

Edit: And even when the phones are down, there's always CB radios and satellite phones, though unless you're a highly successful drug dealer or international secret agent having the latter device in your possession is unlikely.

Another edit: And on top of that social media posts are literally just excuses to brandish some sort of accomplishment or express some sort of grievance to as many people as you possibly can while still being able to, from the safety of your home and/or convenience of your mobile device, state you were just "mentioning it" to a friend.

You wrote:"The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart..."
Is that an "or" or an "of" (ability of nature). — Nickolasgaspar

Or. Which does confusingly imply there's a state of non-consciousness compared to a consciousness that one must heh consciously "activate" whereas nature is just the simple tendency to with or without said intent. I suppose such wording leaves both bases covered.

I'd rather be treated like a dumb animal than judged as a evil human and treated accordingly. — Yohan

That's not what he asked. Dumb animals get eaten or if deemed 'dangerous' by humans are put down. 'Evil' humans are either legally liable as criminals or not. Though mob rule and even individual vendettas do offer a plethora of equally undesirable outcomes.

You know in some cultures people are stoned to death for adultery. — Yohan

Heh, yeah there's this one culture called humanity. I've seen much worse happen to people who commit adultery, and not just toward the women either. I suppose it may support your argument but, you don't often see that in the animal kingdom. It's overshadowed by the constant stench of indiscriminate death.

I notice you capitalize 'man', giving some sort of recognizable distinction. Others do this by allocating the belief of a soul. You have much in common with those you wish to differentiate yourself from.

Fair enough. Let's go beyond an example and see, explore the phenomenon as you say. What's your definition (and relevant examples) of what is and what is not consciousness and what is compatible if not identical and what is contradictory to my own. I'll start I suppose.

What is consciousness:

The ability or nature to identify oneself as an independent and free agent apart and distinct from other beings able to distinguish some sense of time and therefore "life" or "reality (ie. past, present, future). With the personal stipulation of being organic. Not all agree will agree on that last part

What is conscious:

- A mentally unafflicted human person of reasonable age
- Intelligent animals

What is not conscious:

- A highly intelligent AI system following currently non-existent and hypothetical coding that just so happens to perfectly mimic the human brain and its functions
- A single celled organism such as amoeba

Oh come now, how can we or at least expect others to identify with, let alone vote for someone or something they deem 'non relatable'.

It may be a shite show but at least the performers are entertaining enough to detract from the hopeless nature of what is or at least could easily be. Easy counter though, it's a downward and destructive spiral of who can exhibit/inspire the most immoral and unscrupulous behavior in not just themselves but in others while still being able to look at the man in the mirror at the end of the day. Opposing view, which is hard for the non-theist (and even then) to grasp is, we may miss it if/when it's ever gone.

Well written, can't say I came across anything disagreeable.

Did they use a telescope to see the neighbors down the street? Did they see the neighbors down the street holding a telescope? Was it the neighbors next-door who were seen down the street, or was it the neighbors who stay down the street? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Not sure if this is still "bayesian", admittedly I'm not familiar with the term, but context is key. Take the sentence in your example "I saw the neighbors down the street with a telescope". What are we talking about? Was it some stranger who just walks up to me and blurts that out? Or were we discussing our shared interest in astronomy or perhaps living in an age of heliocentric prosecution? Depending on the answer, the context becomes quite clear, at least reasonable enough to assume.

Every piece of knowledge we have was prefaced by a question we or someone before us once asked. Questions make the world go 'round. If you can't ask questions about a statement, it's safe to say the source knows far less than they attempt to present. Kinda like an intelligent bird that can "speak".

How can a discussion about such things as God, reality, consciousness, truth, morality—or even unspecified subsets of ideological or philosophical subjects such as liberalism or realism, have sufficient meaning in the absence of precise definitions? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Easy. It's simply sufficient. Not to be coy or snark but it makes you tilt your head in thought and perhaps smile and nod. Absolute meaning, or universal consensus as a realistic and subjective compromise, is what cannot be reached so easily. Not without valid criticism at least.

Example, you know what you wrote and believe it to be coherent, as do I. That's well enough and much better even than if your post was about something like say, chocolate cake and it's gravitational affect on chickens, for example.

I think he's channeling the attitude and spirit of one Jonathon Swift, author of "A Modest Proposal". Sometimes one needs to see the extreme of their belief to see not just the unseen potential volatility of it, but the potential strength of an opposing one. Which interestingly enough doesn't necessarily change the rationale of either. Key word being necessarily.

Edit: Energy is life. Active vs. inactive. Kinetic vs. potential. One demands attention as it is of the here and now, reality even. Though the other could easily end up being the attention of demand for an entire lifetime.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people? — Xtrix

Never. Ever since humanity replaced geocentric theory for heliocentric theory, there was nothing but horrid weapons of war and disease. Nobody ever got hurt (or at least disintegrated and their homes irradiated) when we listened to our religious overlords.

If you feel like you have to "be something" at certain times but not others you're simply not what you're trying to be and are an actor. So act as you deem necessary. The world is a stage some say, and after all the show must go on.

I'll re-interpret this as something along the lines of "when to not be a douche", you have your opinions and others have theirs. Personally I happen to know foul behavior only appeases and attracts foul people into your life and only a fool would be taken back at the realization that what you put out and the people who deem degeneracy to be acceptable end up being degenerates and foul in your own life are your own just desserts, ordered at a premium with the lion's share of your time and mind. Though, I suppose there's exceptions. All warfare is based on deception after all. You can't trim the diseased branches of a larger system from beneath it now can you.

In A. "they" refers to the protestors, in B. it refers to the councillors. We know this because of our experience of the world. It's an example of something a computer couldn't know. — Daemon

They only refer to the protestors and councilors respectively, because the father, or author, of the sentence determined so. Or I suppose "it simply happened that way" or as you say, that's just how "the world" (generally) works.. There are numerous scenarios, one of which has been posted previously, where it could easily be the opposite.

The same (likely) context recognition could be achieved, albeit haphazardly, with a 'word map' database.

Councilor = government, order, ruler, leader, society, peace, stability

Protestor = worker, grievance, anger, rebellion, uprising, turmoil, injustice

The more general words (violence) matched with context specific words (they), that happen to match a subsequent 'word map' of words relevant/associated with each party or subject(s) can more often than not determine which party to apply said word to. It would take a great deal of finagling, sure. But it's doable. Not with any laser accuracy, of course. Which I suppose was your point.

What exactly are we discussing and for what purpose? I do fail to see the profoundness or any possible fruit of this topic. Computers, AI =/= human comprehension. I doubt there was any disagreement at any point.

Would you perhaps mind explaining it then, seeing as you now hold the minority viewpoint of 'understanding' in this discussion?

These are different meanings. In A the councillors advocate violence and B they fear violence (which has two meanings in and of itself). — I like sushi

Hm, I can see the point. Why not:

Out of fear of violence, the councilors refused to allow the protestors, whom are known to advocate violence, to demonstrate.

Or something of the like. Granted not everyone speaks casually in such a manner so it is useful for any application that plans to be relevant to be able to recognize as much variation in sentence construction as possible. Which as has been noted, is quite difficult.

Edit: And of course technically both sentences can mean either or, with a little thought. Granted we know and should assume the same meanings as in the OP, but there's nothing that prevents the opposite.