The truth is that the world provides for living creatures, not an artificial political-economic system. — introbert

I agree. Mother nature has rules, checks and balances. She provides for natural phenomena. If one such species decides they are the ruler of nature, wait and see what she makes of it.

Universal basic income provided by the state? Is this part of the "truth"? — jgill

It is if the state wants the people that uphold it to continue to exist/survive. What good is a state that doesn't provide for anyone and thus in the end could hardly be called a state when their lack of provision leads to almost everyone's death.

When we cooperate we live. When no one cooperates, we die at the hands of barbaric times and pure chaos.

This is why the philosopher in Plato\s cave allegory has such a difficult task to lead the others out of the life of illusion, toward the truth. The deluded are very comfortable in their delusions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very true. I agree.
And its a shame in a way because with delusion comes a lack of wisdom. Because wisdom comes from truth not delusion.

Living in the cave is like cutting your arms repeatedly on the shackles, suffering thus and wondering why or where this suffering comes from. Yet seeking comfort in the fact that you don't know.

All the while, a key sits in the locks unturned. Waiting if it is no longer ignored. But that key is frightfully uncomfortable to look at. The uncertainty the key represents from a state of delusion.

Then it's not selflessness. Words are tools and I now know more about your use of the term and I can work with that. But the word is selfless. Homeless is without a home. Remorseless indicates no remorse. — Bylaw

I see what you mean. Yes perhaps it's more appropriate to use the term self and merely expand its borders rather than call it selfless.
True selflessness would be to try and rescue everyone, get hated for it by the most selfish people, and thus annihilated, martyred, murdered for your attempts to unify society, and do this knowing exactly what would happen to you. Now that, the sacrifice of the physical self to imbue wisdom into others, that is probably termed "selflessness" based on fate.

But in general we don't need people to not have as much self. We just need to make sure we don't take away that part of the self that cares about others and identifies with them. — Bylaw

Yes. Bravo :)

Often the idea is to fight the natural identification with the other. The natural tendency to not like seeing others suffering. To fight this, indoctrinate that they are not like you, not human, not deserving of empathy. You have to find a way to reduce that part of the self that cares for others. Note: that means making them have less self. — Bylaw

Yes quite right. Proganda and alienation of others, not seeing them as human (like self) I think is fundamentally based on fear and denial. Fear that in doing so you will realise just how vulnerable and mortal you are. And denial well...as a natural must to defer that fear. For them it's wholly rational to seek out /make themselves Gods amongst men (invincible/untouchable) , but for the rest (those suffering) it is entirely unjustified/Immoral.

for all? how can it be true for some and not for all? do you have any examples of things that can come into being independently of the things which are necessary for their existence? — TheGreatArcanum

Self-fullfilling prophecies/outcomes come into being from none other than themselves. They require no external neccesity.
"Jane fully believes she will fail her maths class on Monday. Jane is so sure that she becomes depressed, feels worthless and wholly anxious. Jane does not listen to any support/wisdom provided by her parents and friends (external neccesity to avoid failing).

Jane thus fails her exam. All by herself. Resounding Belief manifested as real with time.

As I said, the laws of thermodynamics include the second law, which accounts for the loss of energy with entropy. But the second law is just as false as the law of conservation, because it assumes that the lost energy still exists as energy, when it does not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Entropy is the tendency for energy to disperse further afield. Down a gradiant from high energy to a more widespread low energy state. The energy can't disappear it just keeps spreading out until it becomes matter (still energy).

For energy to disappear how is it magically created out of nothing? Unless it's not actually nothing but potential energy (immeasurable) or at most indirectly measurable.

We can just agree to disagree if you'd like? But so far you haven't convinced me of your explanation and I cited several examples to the contrary.

That's exactly the assumption which has been proven to be false, as explained above. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only proof you've provided is personal opinion. I'm not sure I agree with that as definitive proof hence my request for you to give me the proof you have found elsewhere that is apparently the worlds "best kept secret" - an ultimate theory of physics

You could say that some of the heat from the room is lost to the outside, but if you go outside and make measurements, you will not find it all. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course you can. Set up an infrared camera outside the room and you'll see the heat energy lost from the room.
Don't be silly now.

Otherwise how would we know what insulations are best to insulate our houses with?

Despite all sorts of attempts to find it, all of the lost energy has never ever been located — Metaphysician Undercover

How could it be, you woukd have to travel faster than the speed of light to collect it all.

That is just a completely unproven assumption. In fact, it has been proven to be false. You assume that the lost energy actually exists somewhere else, and is measurable in that form, somewhere, however it exists. But it has really been proven that this is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you send me a reference to that proof then? I'm intrigued to hear all about this proof that satisfies Newtonian, relativistic and quantum physics.
How come we haven't already heard of such a momentous proof that unifies physics and makes it complete?

The truth is, 'conservation of energy' is not true. In reality all transactions of energy lose some energy and this is why 'perpetual motion' is unobtainable — Metaphysician Undercover

That's incorrect.
Transactions of energy from A to B lose energy from the |AB| system as heat, light and sound energy (usually due to unavoidable friction).

That doesn't mean energy conservation isn't true. It just means not all energy in A can be transformed perfectly into B (perpetual motion) without loss to C - the external environment (unless that environment is a frictionless/gravitiless environment - of which outerspace is a close but not perfect fit for those conditions).

Not only that but the transaction of energy from A to B doesn't even have to be a loss. It can be a gain - from C.
If a cold cup of water is put in a hot room, the hot room heats up (gives energy) to the cold cup system (A - the container and B the water) until the heat in the cup and the heat in the room are equal and balanced, and energy is exchanged equally in both directions, constantly.

The sum of energy in any system |AB| plus C (the environment/ system encapsulating |AB| is conserved.

If you don't believe that you would have to challenge all of physics based on the laws of thermodynamics (which is a lot) which I doubt will get you very far in proving without undoing all the useful technology (like fridges and AC) that work because of those principles.

So 'conservation of energy' is not true, and the second law of thermodynamics has been proposed as an amendment, a way to account for lost energy. And since the second law of thermodynamics is a proposal meant to amend the falsity of another law, it is actually false itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

On the contrary special relativity actually resolves the first 2 laws of thermodynamics. So they are not both false but both true as well as all the technology we have made based on them.

Energy can be conserved but unmeasurable (speed of light). In this case it is "potential" energy like that held in a spring before its let go. It is potential energy due to how distance and time change on approach to the speed of light.

Therefore system C is finite, cannot be created nor destroyed (conserved) = 1). Newtonian physics.

System C is limited (conserved) by the cosmic speed limit "c" of light = 2). Special relativity (some energy is matter and some is action on that matter E =mc2)

AND

System C cannot be fully measured at once. 3). Quantum physics: Even though energy is conserved it cannot all be measured from within time itself (Heisenbergs uncertainty principle).

Perhaps the thought instead is that in order for A to have caused B, then some energy would need to be transferred - for all causal transactions, it is now being supposed, involve a transfer of energy. But that is not part of the principle of the conservation of energy. That's a new and distinct claim about the nature of causation. — Bartricks

Is A/C is external environment as you said and B is an observer, I would imagine that of course energy is transferred to B from A.

Is that not what an observers (B) senses pick up on: light energy (vision), sound energy (hearing), thermal energy (temperature), kinetic energy (touch) etc.

This is the transfer of energy from A to B. This energy is used to store information (encoded) in the perceivers memories. The energy doesn't just disappear. Energy can then be transferred by one's body (the observer) back into A or as you put it "C" in the causal timeline, based on that which it received (A).

An observer B - is not energetically removed from the system. We eat and we crap, we transform chemical energy into body heat (thermal) or leave as is to run our consciousness (ability to perceive A/C.

There still is no violation of dualism in this case.
E=mc2 simply means that energy and matter are fundamentally the same, and time is the difference.

Of the many observations and manipulations of the brain that we can explain, we cannot tell you what part of the brain controls consciousness — Rocco Rosano

Why does it have to be a finite part that controls consciousness? I think all parts of the structure and how those structures interact with eachother is what consciousness is.

If I had to put it down to a singular "part" - it would be the simple large scale interplay between "positive/reward/pleasure/good" circuits and "negative/inhibitory/depressing/bad" circuits in a pool of memories - the associations or relationships between which apply the meaning to this constant battle of opposing forces - joy, sadness, hope, disappointment, fear, peace, all concepts or "meanings" that emerge out of experience (the pool of memories) of the two basics "Good" or "Bad".

In that way the physical brain is like sort of a network of physical discrete words like "one" "two" "three" (neurons) that have meaning applied to them (electrical activity +/-), and the grammar is how we connect words to one another to construct more complicated sentences (meaning).

Language - reflects what a brain does. As outside/so within.

Another angle on this: someone is judged as selfish for not sharing their stuff. I think it's actually better to tell them they are not being selfish enough. I think there is even better language possible, but this, I think is more accurate than saying they are being too selfish. — Bylaw

Yes it depends on what idea of "selfish" one has. If they think it is about serving their own physical self, gathering and not sharing resources - then they are being materialistic selfish/physicalist selfish.

But if they think selfishness is about propagating a sense of unity, sense of oneness, to others, then as you said they ought to be more "selfish" and disperse resources and their wisdom etc. In this case they are being "spiritually/Immaterially/non material selfish".

Two very different meanings of the word selfish. One more ethically permissable than the other. A good grounds for argument indeed. And likely a good way to fight propaganda as you pointed out.

Which is why you need to do a lot of propaganda work to set the stage for things like the Holocaust or what happened in Rwanda. You have to fight this core portion of the self very hard, for a long time, preferably from early childhood. And for generations. — Bylaw

Very true Bylaw. Propaganda is based on deluding people away from the idea of "self", pitting them against eachother. Its most evil and unsettling I think.

That we must set aside the self to get to empathy and care for others, we are telling selves that having a self, coming from a self, is a problem. — Bylaw

Well, obviously we must have a physical self. But I think it pertains more to "only thinking about yourself" or being "self-absorbed". That to me is selfishness. When others needs for resources come second and only second to your own.

It is reflected well by the sentiment that so many mothers tell us when we are small "the world doesn't revolve around you!"

Selflessness for me is not about not existing as a physical self, but rather it's about extending your awareness and consideration beyond your own needs to envelope those of others.

We naturally think of our family as part of our" sphere of self, a sort of extension of our own needs" - the thing that ought to be protected, helped, shared resources with etc for the simple fact that we love them, and having them around, safe from struggle and suffering.

There is a fine line however, to have others best interests at heart you cannot force them to do what you want. You must always allow others to have freedom of choice and simply demonstrate through action why what you think is good for them is indeed the case and let them choose if they want to agree with you or not.

This fine line is a tumultuous struggle we frequently find ourselves in with our own parents especially during puberty when our independence from them is really developing. What might be in your best interest according to your father/mother may be forced on you with scorn, and that can lead to arguments.

Parents have to recognise the point when their fully dependent child has grown up and developed their own personality, and thus respect their boundaries, trusting that they know what is best for themselves. Otherwise an overbearing parent will foster a non compliant child, which may do the wrong thing just in spite of the fact that they feel they aren't allowed to make their own choices.

At the end of the day, no parent can prevent their kids from making their own mistakes/get hurt. They need to. To learn. And only then do children or young adults realise that all along their parents really did have the best intentions for them, and they come back to them. They agree to be an "extension of self", part of the family, "togetherness" rather than "otherness - non self"

, I do think her assertion suffers from some vagueness — Hanover

It is vague for sure. I agree with you on that.

But if she is a very kind, warm, caring person, both for herself and her friends, that has this sudden intense fear/anxiety regarding her liberties/freedom, I still fail to see how detaining her is Just. When in this case she is not a harm to herself or others is she? Unless having full freedom of thought is harmful to some others.

It would seem at most that she is a bit erratic and panicky and the most sensible thing would be to sit her down and talk through her concerns so maybe they would surface from the vaguery?
Hardly a case for forced medication.

↪Benj96 She believed she would be unjustly detained, but she wasn't. She was justly detained. She was wrong. — Hanover

Justly detained according to who? Her?
She, and her family and friends and work collegues - a whole group of people - can all still think she was unjustly detained, whilst the psychiatrists/nurses etc think it was just based on what they believe is a "delusion".

But really, it is only just when she is a threat to herself or others. Can you point out, without speculating, just based on the information given in the situation, why she was so dangerous to others or herself?

Secondly can you explain how a psychiatrist knows what all delusions are in order to diagnose someone, without having any delusions of their own? Are psychiatrists infallible in that case? Or are they flawed like the rest of us (have delusions about actual reality).

Exactly Mark. For the purpose of everyday life its nice to not have to think about time and merely take it as that thing that's always there ticking along in the background.

But it's great that we have the imagination, creativity and lateral thinking skills to posit deeper questions about what time means to us, how is it perceived, where it comes from and what is its relationship to not just us but anything at all.

In that way it's the most basic, trivial/mundane of things but also one of the most profound and illusive.

This would provide a context of justification. As it stands we would have to assume
the woman is clairvoyant — Joshs

Yes it would seem to be the only logical explanation given the circumstances described, strictly without changing or factoring in more information than is available, it would seem she saw/ or felt intuitively the future somehow, or her subconscious did somehow.

Do you think clairvoyancy is possible? Given the fact that it is an idea that has persisted for many millenia in many forms without ever being fully discredited: oracles, see-ers, prophets, white witches, sages etc and many people have been noted: nostradamus, baba vanga etc.

Is it reasonable to consider clairvoyancy as being equivalent to "having a predictive capacity/ability to reduce variables to such a degree that situations that have not yet occurred can be deemed almost 100% likely to occur through accurate calculation".

Is it reasonable perhaps that clairvoyance could represent the cognitive dissonance between two different levels of self-awareness?

As in if someone is more aware of themselves and how their environment works they could predict something that someone else that is not so aware of themselves or their environment would deem as "impossible" and therefore "mystical."

For example if I was not aware of meteorological technology and someone told me there would be a storm in one week. And then sure enough there was, I would imagine this person as a "prophet of the clime". Because my Level of awareness and their greater one have cognitive dissonance.

I have no rational explanation as to how they could predict the weather other than to see them as a mystic with special abilities.

It seems then that some people's awarenesses of what is real/true are greater than other peoples. What then, would be the ultimate awareness one could possess? What would be the whole truth?

Yes, it's fine. But you and I are focusing on different things. I'm looking only at rationality and you're taking a broader perspective. Nothing wrong with either way, but they don't match up. — T Clark

I thought we agreed that it was rational from the point of view of both sides. Are you saying only the law is rational? Or only the criminal is rational?

Or am I correct in saying (from a border perspective of course), that both sides make good arguments depending on the quality of their moral intention.

I don't see how you and I are actually disagreeing.

I grew up not believing in time so that's my bias. I sometimes change my view but have to be convinced.

My mindset is that it's always the physical present and that physical matter changes. — Mark Nyquist

Well you would find relatvity very interesting then. As because it takes time for light/other perceivable information to travel a distance, according to relativity nothing is "simultaneous".

According to relativity an absolute "present" doesn't exist for objects/observers. If it did then everything - past, present and future would all occur equally instantaneously.

Is time external to and unaffected by the things located in time? — Joshs

I would say no as time passes internally (perception) and externally (standardised for use by everyone as a collective).

A person just waking from a coma likely has a very different perception of the passage of time as someone who lived their life conscious during that coma period.

When you sleep does it feel like 8 hours have passed? Or does it feel like you fell asleep, had a few minutes worth of dream recollection and then woke up? The perception of time is dependent on level of consciousness.

Time clearly then has Duality. That which is personally interpreted to have passed, and that which has objectively passed/elapsed.

we would relieve ourselves of the false perception of time.
6h — Mark Nyquist

How would we relieve ourselves of false perceptions of time when we cannot avoid perceiving time? Its part of consciousness.
If you ask 10 people how much time elapsed after a fun/exhilarating event like a roller-coaster ride, you'll find a large descrepency between individual opinion. Some may say it took 28 seconds, others 1 minute and 10 seconds, when according to a clock it may have actually been 47 seconds.

If I need money to finance a drug habit or to take a trip to Las Vegas and I rob a store to get it, that is not necessarily irrational. It's illegal and immoral and likely to have very bad consequences for the criminal, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational either. — T Clark

Yes absolutely. You're quite right T Clark. It's not irrational in that it serves the purposes of the criminal (assuming they get away with it). But despite it being rational to then its selfish.

And morality is based on the difference between selfishness and selflessness.
So in the case I have, you could argue that the person buying illegal drugs that have a relieving effect on suffering to help the person they love is a selfless act.

They are putting themselves in direct harms way (the law and criminal penalties they may face) just to help another person feel better through illness/tough times.

The law tries to take these factors into consideration. It is up to a judge to determine whether someone did something disappoving to the law, in the sole interest of love, in an effort to save/reduce their loved ones.

So the criminal stealing to go gamble in Las Vegas is a very different situation from the "criminal" ignoring the law to aid another's suffering.

Its a simple as that. The law and public are generally sympathetic to such cases hence why laws are often challenged and amended based on the people they didn't consider in their sweeping generalisation (being applied equally to all civilians). Sadly such people which I believe have purely good intentions, dont always win in those contentious debates and end up serving prison time.

Not all people in prison are neccesarily "bad people". Its merely a mistake that they took responsibility for even if they didn't do something inherently harmful. Or at least made their best attempts not to.

Humans are flawed. Civilians are flawed. And the justice system they create is equally flawed and requires revision in cases where it wasn't applied correctly that's why we have an appeals process.
The law is doing its best to emulate the social conscience (at leaat in democracies).

Do you think that's a fair/balanced assessment?

a disturbing prospect indeed Alkis.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how we throw around the word "delusion" as it assumes that the person accusing another of it has "reality" under wraps themselves. And if they new what reality actually was I'd imagine they would be much more famous, distinguished and globally recognised, not just working a job in the emergency psych department.

From that I infer that in cases where a law is rational, you think criminal acts are not rational. I was disagreeing that is necessarily true. — T Clark

Well it is a matter of perspective is it not?

The law may be rational in that it seeks to say, stop organised crime selling unregulated and potentially dangerous drugs and not paying taxes on the profits.

And it may be rational to the person to buy such a drug (like cannabis where it is illegal) to ameliorate the suffering of say a family member that is dying of cancer (to improve appetite, decrease pain and improve mood).

In this case both the law is rational (from the lawmakers perspective) and rational to the person (on an ethical basis for their relative that is suffering beyond what anyone can/is doing for them with legal means.

Its a complex situation. There is validity on both sides yet in conflict with one another. I can only imagine a third option is the solution. A distinction may need to be made between the different purchasers of an illegal drug based on their intentions/reasons for doing so. Or perhaps a loosening of the law and enforcing of regulation on the availability and quality of the drug to safeguard civilians and put pressure on the criminals to conform with regulation.

even facts — god must be atheist

Interesting. What's the difference between a fact and a belief in your views?

This is why I became arrogant: because she was unable to adjust her thinking mode that was necessary to assert the situation. — god must be atheist

Is that not just saying I became arrogant because she was unable to agree with my arrogance (the situation asserted/proposed by you).

And if your beliefs are truly better (more ethical and more reasonable) than hers wouldn't they be less likely to cause her harm/upset her.

Usually when we argue and the other person gets upset, regardless of whether you have a personal logic for your points/beliefs, something has obviously gone wrong - not considering the others beliefs as valid within context.

We can usually always resolve conflict through establishing the full context of both points of views and why they are valid to both people even if they conflict with one another without context.

no-win situation that only had a chance to escalate opposing opinions — god must be atheist

I think it does have a chance to escalate for sure. But never forget the second option is simply to "agree to disagree". Basically saying I respect your decision to continue your belief despite me not understanding it personally.and vice versa. That way you can part ways on an endless argument without either feeling particularly attacked.

I often see arguments in this forum get personal. And start to approach direct character degrading tactics rather than calm discussion based on how frustrated/how badly one wants to convince someone else on their views (how correct they think they are).

I haven't even escaped that dynamic myself on occasion, it's very easy to happen. That's why we have ethics for tolerances sake.

Benj96 Just remember there is personal judgment involved in any such decision. Perhaps the discussion seemed more of a general conversation about values rather than a philosophical discussion. I think it's fine for them to pull an OP. If they did it to me, I would accept the decision as I consider myself a guest here and subject to site standards. — Tom Storm

Yeah fair. I just found it a bit frustrating because I wanted to see people's ideas on the matter and a few contributors ans I were getting somewhere I think before they shut it down. And I do accept their decision now I just felt an explanation when they did would have been appreciated not have to go chase after it.

But the info the other contributors provided me was very useful.

Benj96 Nice discussion of the physics related to time. Thanks. :cool: — jgill

Thank you jgill. :)

Benj96 I tend to scold people here on their use of the word " information " without much result. Could you explain ( your basis for and physically how ) energy and matter hold information.

To me, the best way to understand time psychologically is to define information as brain state existing as the physical brain with mental content. No Tinkerbelling please. Energy should be just energy and matter should be just matter. — Mark Nyquist

I'll try my best not to tinkerbell haha.
What do we mean by "information". For me it is synonymous with "change" and thus requires two distinct states of existence: 1). An observer and the 2) the observed
So far so good?

Observation is an active process (it requires information to travel from A (the object) to B (the subject).

Information can only travel between the two if there is a). Inherent information on offer within the object - for example matter - which gives quantitative and qualitative information: how much, what shape, what texture, size, colour, location etc.

b) inherent information in the subject (a database for reference - Memory, as well as the perception of time that that data offers by being static (stored) in a changing external environment (one where new stimuli are constantly flowing in through the senses and influencing the database.
.
c). Sufficiently short distance between A and B so that the information exchange can be accurately interpreted as occurring almost simultaneously. Things that are light-years away are not occurring "now" when the light reaches our eyes. The speed of light (fastest rate at which information can travel) has an influence.

Energy should be just energy and matter should be just matter. — Mark Nyquist

But it is not.
They are the equivalent by a function of the speed of light. E=mc2. If energy should just be energy and matter just matter than you'd have to contest Einsteins famous and widely accepted formulas relating to general and special relativity.

it answered us with 100 years worth of more questions.

Time is the greatest contributor to philosophy. Not a who but a what.

:P omfg dead. Haha. Go you
!

Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little. — universeness

Thanks Universeness. You're precious. That's exactly what I did and exactly what happened. Oh well, it seems some questions are un-questionable.
I guess we just have to live in a world where all questions are not permissible.
Who knew!?

Onwards with hope I say. There's many ways to "skin a cat" so to speak.

Thanks for your support and suggestions

First of all, don't get angry. — ssu

I won't dont worry.

Perhaps the title of the thread was a bit confusing. — ssu

Thank you for citing the relevant guidelines to me. That was thoughtful.

I just don't understand how you were in agreement before when the discussion was active and didn't understand why it ought to be censored but now are proposing the question was inappropriate. No specific offense issued, in just trying to wrap my head around it.

What changed? As far as I knew it was thoughtful, contextual, interesting, concise and linguistically coherent.

I mean I'm not disgarding the idea that it wasn't. But if someone could explain why I didn't meet those conditions that would be appreciated

Hey ssu I've had my second post deleted by the moderators :(
I wasnt trying to aggravate anyone merely ask questions. What do you make of the situation?

Hey universeness, I've been censored again. :( Baden had my last topic of discussion removed a second time because I didn't ask him if it was okay to repost.

What do you make of the situation? Any more insights on offer brother?

Ah okay thanks Universeness for your insights :)
I'll pm a moderator and ask where it went.