I've never been intimately familiar with many fancy terms in philosophy, but from Googling let me know If I put these actions or beliefs in the correct place.

Consequentialism:

- If I invade a person's privacy because I was bored or just think they're up to something based on very little, and find they have a hit list or planned mass shooting and thus prevent it, that's right and was what I should have done.

- I fatally shoot a man who I see running into a crowded supermarket with body armor and an assault rifle, who perhaps, was about to go on a shooting spree. This is good and makes a good person.

Non-consequentialism:

- I respect my roommates privacy despite his frequent outbursts and rants and the fact he recently purchased a firearm that is his legal right, and he ends up hurting multiple people. I did nothing wrong, there was nothing I could or most importantly should have done.

- I see the same man running into a crowded supermarket with body armor and an assault rifle and just run because who knows perhaps he's an undercover law enforcement officer dispatching a true threat. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'm still right and did the right thing.

--

Or am i way off here?

This was a great post to read. Not that I keep track of who posts what but from what I can recall and associate with your screen name, probably my favorite. Funny it may sound sarcastic but it's really not. I will admit I'm not a fan of your if X is Y then Z posts. Then again, perhaps logic and morality are more intertwined than we like to think..

So. The obvious questions/responses

You claim to define therefore (more or less absolutely) know a real world which so begets the existence of an alternative. What makes one more real than the other? Your mere interpretation from your (and these are other people's words not mine) barely evolved senses or even simple presence? Ha. Doesn't a charlatan create a world that is real to those who observe and believe?

But for all intents and purposes, let's call this interconnected experience we call life that we can interact and respond either positively or negatively with one another, as "the real world". Was all science and definitions or laws of reality defined 500 years ago? No. What on Earth would make you think, especially in this age of degeneracy and strife, they are now? There will always be more to learn. The only idea of a fact comes from a hypothesis that has yet to be confronted by an opposing truth.

The little bang needed something to aspire toward.

What? Makes as much sense as any other coherent answer here.

Is that a question?

Just kidding. As everything, beyond repeatable and consistent observation, which even then is mere circumstance, suggests.. perhaps.

I suspect you may be on borrowed time — Tom Storm

Time is money. Is this not correct? And both are no object. Only those who treat them as such are in said predicament.

1. A good life is worth living; conversely, a bad life is not worth living. — darthbarracuda

For how long, is the real question

2. One should only procreate if one can have reasonable knowledge that their offspring will have a good life. — darthbarracuda

Humans, to my knowledge, thankfully, don't have enhanced abilities like the one you describe, so, you're a proud antinatalist it would seem. Good for you. Variety is the spice of life.

As to the rest.. uh, sure. Why not. You seem educated enough to raise a kid that doesn't grow into a malfeasance. Or even better, to fight the scourge of them. So why don't you.

I subscribe to the truth of Shawn. Anything that differs is probably a lie or at worst the devil's work.

P.S. I mean this post as an example of what could be any philosopher's fallacy, Nothing to do with you per se, naturally as I know little of you. Though perhaps it could be an idle reminder.. and if it so happens to be of use, no thanks are needed.

Though to contribute on the absolute nature of facts, something other than the clearly best (most long-lived) definition that is that which is opposed would be irrational.. whatever works for the time, the moment, or situation. Say gravity reverses itself, the solar system is about to be destroyed by a black hole that so happens to allow objects to pass into it and into the next universe, and some undiscovered force that lifts objects off the ground and into said black hole, but only if significant negative inertia is reached exists. Therefore, the only way to survive would be to jump off a cliff or tall building. This would be a fact in said scenario due to changing of circumstance. Outside of said scenario, it would be utter nonsense.

So 'facts' ie. dependable and reliable pieces of information that can be repeatedly proven (scientific method) are solely dependent on circumstance, a thing we constantly try to ascertain and assess, with great success due to the grandeur or "slowness" of time, but can never truly know. However, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" has surprisingly relevant applications as far as science and research goes it seems.

But stupidity comes at a price. And perhaps starting with the invention of the Gatling gun, the price often has been too high. — tim wood

"If you don't do it, somebody else will" which is an unfortunate fact that most pacifistic logic crumbles in the face of, not from animosity but from sheer hypocrisy of what it's foremost doctrine declares to prevent.

There's a reason there are no 'almost humans' in the animal kingdom. And so, requires some sort of higher power. God, an eternal being that is a non-being in most senses, or alien life which opens an equally disturbing world of possibilities (we are rejects), whatever it may be, religion seeks to confront this (potential) fact with an option that benefits the believer. Who are you to say otherwise.

"Intelligence" primarily denotes compliance with a worldview. — frank

Does it? Naturally the opposite of intelligence, being ignorance, would of course be what an unequivocal collection of what is known vs. what is unknown or more severely what is known to be wrong. For example, creating friction between two pieces of flint or twigs perhaps, can create a fire, whereas not doing so when one would be deemed necessary could result in death or at least being annoyingly hungry for some time.

Basically "the way things are" and knowing how best to respond to them, that is provide for what is desired or needed, is an adaptation or yes knowledge, but worldview? Eh, I would call that shaky ground.

Sure there is. Challenge mode, extra hard level on a video game. Just look at ski slopes. Color coded for convenience even. Where would the fun be in knowing you were placed there by choice. That leaves an easy exit as a non-option.. which is part of the difficulty, and hence, the fun.

Prison, requested obstacle course, when ignorance allows either of the two to be equally viable.. what you choose says more about you than the environment and/or circumstances that placed you in it now doesn't it?

Humanity.

Like myself and others have alluded to on the Guest Speaker thread about transhumanism, it seems more of a Pandora's Box than this "panacea of the gods" proponents of it market it as. Basically, to me and I'm sure many others it just seems like there's much more room for things to go wrong/be abused and harm humanity than otherwise.

Aside from the immediate answers that are best conveyed as questions ie. "Who wants to live forever anyway?" or "Yeah what happens if you get trapped in a cave or something. Would you rather starve to death in a few weeks or live in darkness for the next few hundred years?" or what about "Yeah what if a political rival implants you with a 'transhuman' device that amplifies pain and prolongs your life to withstand amounts of torture.that would make a god jealous?" All these very rational concerns aside.. what would be the point? It all leads to one place, which is a simulated reality that is not organic in nature. All transhumanist roads lead to "uploading" oneself and discarding (or at least not being around to prevent discarding) the human body, which is a lie, you'll think it's you, but it's really not. And people will be deceived by this and run to it in droves.

Edit: We already have our feet wet so to speak as far as more broader definitions of transhumanism. Pacemakers, prosthetics, "life extending" supplements, etc.

Edit 2: Also, fun fact. Some religious types may oppose it due to eerie similarities in popular religious texts, one being: "Men will seek death and will not find it", kinda like what I was saying. It takes a bit of thought, and even than is an uncomfortable if not fleeting truth, but sometimes, death is a blessing not a curse. Not saying death is good, I don't want to, nor would I wish that on pretty much anyone, but the fact we're mortal and can die is what is good.. for reasons I've explained. Wisdom of the gods, don't you know.

Information that conforms with the wishes, patterns, or beliefs of an authority. Be it real world observation and your own senses or legal decree and an enforcing body.

Who is this man? Sounds like a humble man of peace. Unlikely he survived long let alone was able to manage his legacy. Basically unless you met the guy, anyone's guess is as good as the next.

false dichotomy. if your fit to rule, you should. and if not you should conquer your ego before it conquers you, or worse those around you from your own foolish and frivolous action.

Foreword: First of all, I´m definitely against murder. — Antinatalist

Hm.. looks like you're scot-free as of now, but we'll be watching. :grin:

Is it moral to have children? Let's for sake of example, compare a child to say.. something that could do good, do bad, experience pleasure, or immense pain. We arrive at something of a crossroads that yes demands a belief either in disbelief or perhaps one of the greater concepts those who came before held that now escapes the lot of us. So, let's use an offhand example, is making a brick or block of stone for sale moral? After all someone could use it to build a house to house orphans. Or, they could use it to beat a hardworking man to death and take his last morsel thus creating orphans. I suppose there has to be some sort of plan, oversight, or idea that is reasonably likely to occur or not to occur before one can say what is 'moral' or not.

You seem to be alive and assign your words meaning, regardless of anything absolute it seems to bring joy to you, at least enough motivation to type it here before us. So, the answer to your premise is simple and the same as the answer to the following: why did you?

And what will become of him. Yea sometimes the restriction from a discipline will encourage greater interest and practice toward it, but were we, all of us, not once babies suckling on a teet which we could not understand? What if, heavens forbid, philosophy and even higher learning will now be a foe, an enemy, an opponent, a near divine manifestation of arrogance and rejection, symbolic of all that is wrong with this world? No one will know what may now never manifest. May fate guide thee.

Perhaps, to an extent. There are no free lunches. Someone has to pay for it either in effort, time (college years ie. youth spent studying vs. partying), or at the very least lost potential wages/income/revenue. Sure some people are wonderful and charitable. Now if the patient is a brilliant physicist who came down with a condition that impacts his work or a young child with a rare cancer that's a bit different than say some rude, alcoholic, drug addict who decided to slingshot off a bridge on a motorcycle for social media views or a degenerate thug who takes pleasure in harming others at bars who just so happened to finally meet his match, for example.

What is the responsibility of the state? A complex question. When the state will be attacked or even dismantled at the very suggestion of telling people what they can and cannot drink, eat, consume, etc. it comes down to the state having to protect its own existence. So the answer would simply be providing a reasonably safe enough and free environment for people to choose whether or not to live healthy and proper, without rewarding those who don't at the expense of those who do. Which is quite the conundrum.

Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? — schopenhauer1

If the imposition informs you of a greater reality that perhaps you were oblivious to as opposed to some petty personal desire or conditions thereof, what do you think? Some dude calls me on the phone, "yo man your house is on fire", assuming it actually is and he wasn't the one who started it, that's more of a helpful and courteous gesture than an imposition. I'd think so at least.

Lack of faith in what? — Xtrix

In your own words, beliefs, and benefits it has in life it would seem. See, I happen to see your views as wrong, and so I have no disdain or even agitation in being insulted by someone I view as 'wrong' for as it is written, if these [your] works are wrong they will fail. Instead I feel neither pity nor superiority but concern to perhaps benefit you. Yet you seem to have no desire to benefit anyone else but yourself and your own belief. That's why I take offense. And sure, I could be wrong entirely. That should warrant compassion and guidance not wrath and insult. But again, you just don't seem to want that on those who need it, which is where my agitation comes from.

There's nothing to decide. There was a simple question with a simple answer. The answer was: the board of directors. Your answer, "the consumers," was simply wrong. Sorry that this upset you -- but grow up and get thicker skin. I'm not here to baby people.

2+2 = ?

Your answer: 3.

Real answer: 4.

"Well, I guess we'll just have to leave it to the readers to decide." — Xtrix

So why not have just said the "simple answer" from the get go instead of engaging in this pseudo-intellectual hullabaloo of a discussion? You have an answer to a question, and it cannot be proven wrong for you know all as far as this specific topic. Wonderful. Famous last words, but whatever keeps you going, you know? See, this is propaganda, not a debate. I'm not even saying you're wrong and I'm right, just simply by all definitions this is not a debate but an assertion, which is simply not what this site is for. You are here to baby people actually, because if you gave your audience any real benefit of the doubt let alone respect you would have been straightforward with your belief - I'm sorry "the ultimate truth" - from the get go, yet you were not. So at best you view the readers who don't agree with your beliefs as lost sheep or at worst .. to quote you "thin-skinned babies" who post "stupid" comments. And that's great, this is an open discussion forum. Just don't expect everyone to believe what you believe or think your understanding is absolute or relevant to anyone but yourself.

So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is? — Xtrix

Who said I have nothing left to say. No anger, it's just a simple sentence I typed out whilst eating a lemon pepper tuna. I'm either wrong or you are, what does it matter really? See.. your own lack of faith betrays you. As it usually does.

And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself. — Xtrix

Oh not a complete one I see. You're chock full of insults and passive aggression, but logic? That's for the readers to decide. I'm going back to my tuna. Have fun making it known you're above others while complaining about those who do the same. Good Lord I feel like I need a shower after this.

Haha I was thinking of correcting that. Replace that with the most counter-productive word to your argument or just omit it entirely. Do not ignore the rest of my very logical post please!

the markets, supply and demand — Xtrix

So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from?

This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings for hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely. — Xtrix

Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly.

Alternative to what? — Xtrix

Nothing, nothing at all. This entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point.

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation. — Xtrix

So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok.

See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid.

What is your alternative? Random people producing random things with no accountability whatsoever? We had that. Then we got sick of it, mostly from all the deaths with no recompense whatsoever, and so now there's an accountable structure. Anything with the previous quality no matter how small is in fact a corporation of some kind. I'm assuming you mean the most successful in power (which is you by the way, just again more successful) are bad. Yes, people without limits, rules, regulations and restrictions are bad. That's hardly a discussion at this point.

It is weak to revert to claims about never really knowing whether or not something is the case. — apokrisis

Is it now? Apparently all science and widely perceived progress is based on weakness. Do you still believe all events that we're not born with the knowledge of (which is all of them) is based on gods and magic?

Perhaps then, it is even weaker to call any criticism of one's beliefs or even a simple reminder that "hey. perhaps you might not know all there is to know" weak and to be tossed to the wind.

A whirlwind can’t repair itself and so it falls apart — apokrisis

A whirlwind, created by a larger biologic system that is distinct from itself, can however strengthen and prolong it, and in theory, allow it to exist indefinitely. See Jupiter's Great Red Spot that has been "repairing" itself for at least 400 years and for all we humans would know millennia if not much longer. What do you say to that.

Furthermore, what is life for that matter. That which is alive, moves or otherwise interacts with the environment in a matter that consumes that which allows it to continue to exist, breathes, etc? Bacteria is intelligent. We didn't know that let alone it even existed until recently. Ignorance does not define what is fact or fiction. Unless you let it.

Ok, perhaps I have a problem. Perhaps I need guidance. You see I'm coherent. So, be as your name suggests. Guide me, please.

the ability of fully respecting other people's boundaries. — Kaveski

Yeah well, until you learn the virtue of disrespecting the boundaries of those who disrespect those of others and solving the problem we'll say, we're all just pigs living in sh*t. With no value or purpose whatsoever. Subtly, carefully, of course. Loud morons dwarf modulated scholars. Cheating cowards dwarf honest and brave men. Deceitful, cruel men often best the kind and trusting. Maybe you should go do something about it. With tact and intellect. What all the negative persons I describe would die to keep you from. And they say it's for your own good. You'll be happier not doing so. Perhaps there's some truth to their claims. But. Is it really all about you? If so, you're already on a path to becoming the worst of them.

At metaphysical bottom, there is a stuff and information about it. And If we are to understand the stuff, that is the way it will always be. — Pop

Of course, for something to 'exist' be it physical or even a thought it has to have some properties to it. Without turning this into a dreadful discussion of qualia and having to phone up Daniel Dennett, it would seem we equate information with literally anything that exists, form, perhaps. A pure blue sky is information, that it probably won't rain, along with numerous scientific details that can be extracted about weather, climate, atmosphere, etc.

Matter possesses properties aka information, is what you're saying? Sure, it's either small, large, hot, cold, light or dark, inobservable to the human eye (regardless if any alleged humans exist or not) or it is. Descriptions, etc. Dang it, more qualia talk. So this is your (pen?)ultimate definition of information: properties. Matter, even.

Eh. A bit like riding a roller coaster up a steep hill and having it instead turn to the side and gradually return to it's resting place at a speed that wouldn't spill a full glass but, if that's what it is.

Information seems to be a fundamental quantity. The universe needs information fundamentally. It could not exist without it. — Pop

What if, like some suggest, there was a time when nobody was around who could perceive it? If a tree falls in the woods...

A time before DNA and plants even. Just, whatever you believe, I suppose prevailing theories would suggest empty void of various gases and dust that somehow were present, later coalescing to form stars and planets? Was there really information then? What was the "first" bit of information? The big bang? Perhaps, or perhaps prodding too far will render the mind unable to process information entirely. It's a real head-scratcher, or perhaps just a big knee-slapper. I am without information to discern which is most accurate!

I really like the analogy above about TV static being nothing and everything. It can be compared to atoms. We got satisfying enough answers in the OP already, discernment, patterns, etc. A hypothetical infinite and absolutely gray universe, but even a wall painted one color can show that.. if there is one who can perceive, they will. Naturally not only would there not be sentient life in such a universe there would be no knowledge. Is information reality? It becomes almost metaphysical. What is not available to a person, cannot be known. We allegedly live in a "world" where when your heart stops, you are dead. But do we really know this? I know some claim to, myself included, but I just feel there's some relevance somewhere here in this quest for more information about information.

Edit: I see the black hole information paradox has been brought up already, which to those not familiar is "[the suggestion] that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole" clashing with some fancy talk about how it can't.

They believe in something, be it spirit or flesh. Each have their own rewards and consequences. As to what is eternal or "real" essentially, that's something perhaps we'll never know. Of course, man is a misled creation from the get go, as some say.

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

The consumer. Otherwise, in no time at all, you have a bankruptcy, and without a golden parachute, a frantic CEO fleeing to hidden assets in Costa Rica.

Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. Otherwise, you're assuming a shot in the dark will kill your hired assassin. Bold. But there's been bolder.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste.

they lacked the knowledge of the cosmos of the modern day — SteveMinjares

What like which app gives the better discount on fast food burgers? lol

It just seems to me the teachings revolve around fear, fear of losing ones own individuality and fear of mortality and fears of there own conscious awareness. Since I personally don’t carry those fears and struggles and I find the teachings hard to rationalize. — SteveMinjares

Reminds me of the ol' switcheroo where one sign says danger and the other says.. I don't know fluffy bunnies or cheeseburgers or whatever you happen to fancy.

To each there own I guess... — SteveMinjares

Yeah. Guesses are great. Acknowledgement is transcendental.

I wouldn't feel too grateful at 10k posts the argument is more self-enforced than otherwise. :razz:

Anything the mind can comprehend? Is there anything the mind cannot comprehend that is not information? We fall back to the senses. Not seeing any. Anyone?

What do you call children who fail to learn from their parents and decide instead to kill them? Successors. It's literally child's play. Only with real vehicles and guns instead of toy ones. In many respects, this is the world we live in. How long will it last? Well, it depends on the mercy of the parent. Which I fear may be less than everlasting if the old adage of the apple doesn't fall far from the tree bears any fruit.

10 pages later, we have much talk about many things yet no consensus. As normal, we apply reverse.. not psychology but philosophy. What isn't information? Not random scribbles on a test because that confers information about the scribbler's intellect. So what isn't information? What a sentient being has yet to touch, it would appear?

Edit: But not even this! For as nature as it is understood here to be a non-sentient randomness of conformity can convey what time is best to plant, hunt, or harvest. So where does that leave us?

I accept the way of old thinking, that the Sun revolves around the Earth and anyone who thinks otherwise is really just a heretical loon and needs to be put away somewhere cold and dark where they can corrupt the children nevermore.