. Infection may have a very bright future, unless we find a solution to antibiotic resistance — BC

This is very true. We may indeed not have had the last laugh with regards to infections. As evolution of bacteria is much faster than human evolution and our use of antibiotics is placing selective pressures on them to evolve new abilities and protective mechanisms, they seem to be keeping pace with our advancing pharmacy and tech.

Bacteria are incredibly stubborn and changeable. This can confer benefits to us in industry in some cases but also poses a constant health threat.

I am certainly concerned that perhaps our selection of effective antibiotics will become ever more restricted but am hopeful that the nature of capitalism will fuel innovation either chemically or through advancing tech to combat this microscopic foe.

Not to mention, our immune systems, in the billions, are sure to have a small cohort that form a natural immunity to certain infections that perhaps the rest of us can avail of by isolating the genetic mutations that enable sucb protections. And if not maybe we can synthesise a chemical analog.

I think the battle between humans and bacteria will be a constant one, with no ultimate winner, lest we somehow depart from our biological existence entirely and become technological.

But then of course we will have digital viruses to contend with.

I have no reason to believe humans will stop expanding their purview. Our economic model (despite recessions) is hinged on constant expansion/growth and resource acquisition. Our planet being finite in resources this compels us to look further afield - to space and its numerous expansive resources of rare metals and elements as well as habitable planets in which to form economies and industry and thus propagate jobs, lifestyles etc.

Coupled with our innate curiosity to further knowledge, and our advancing technology, it seems inevitable that either us, or our consciousness integrated into artificial bodies, will further our sphere of influence beyond what we ever thought was imaginable before.

So I think it's likely that humans will colonise space, one way or another, and maximise our chances of survival, reducing our dependency on any one solar system, any one energy source (Sun) for survival. All going to plan ofc.

Other lifeforms could be well underway to doing the same. And if they're not, sheer distance will cause our species to diverge into multiple different species across the galaxy. Unless we can solve issues of travel time or become metallic organisms/conscious computers/robots with indefinite lifespans.

What this seems to mean as a general direction is that the universe wishes to be fully colonised, fully consolidated and fully alive/sentient. And if it doesn't wish it, for some reason the physics and chemistry of the system certainly seems to propagate that behaviour and allow for that ideal

Not really. If the queen is defective, or she mated with a defective male, her new colony will never get started; she and her one mate are bred out of the gene pool in one generation. Which doesn't matter, because new ones are started all the time. If that one mating was successful, it establishes the gene pool for the entire colony; all her offspring are siblings, but they collectively decide which few are good enough to reproduce. — Vera Mont

Ah I see. So natural selection would operate on whole colonies - the unit or collective organism that is being snuffed out or propagated. Makes sense as they operate in unison as a strict and well characterised society.

I wonder then what selective pressures are at work on humans as a society rather than just individuals.

Do we have a propensity to develop cancer? In 1901 the leading cause of death was infectious disease -- endemic infections like tuberculosis, and acute infections like staphylococcus. Sulfa and antibiotics reduced infections, allowing cancer a greater opportunity. Better food and sanitation led to greater longevity, which gave us more time to develop cancers and heart disease. — BC

Yes now we have a propensity for cancer in the tiered system of threats to our life, having dealt with barbarism, and infections pretty well, and because we are living long enough for our genetics to reach the point of consolidated existence they never had to deal with before when we had shorter life expectancies, cancer is now predominating.

We are also one of the only animals that partake in self destructive and toxic habits that encourage cancer.

Natural selection only works off pressures. And pressures don't exist when you're already dead. But now that we are living longer, social pressures brought around by rigorous and longer education, establishing social and financial security, are pushing the average reproductive age later and later in life, which applies pressure for those that maintain health and reproductive viability into their 30s and 40s.

Assumimg this trend continues, cancer will be selected against by the need to survive longer before reproducing.

This is of course simplified and many other factors influence this process such as IVF, medicine and lifestyle.

:lol: That, of course, eventually backfires, oui? — Agent Smith

Of course because they kill the host. Or get chemoed. Or surgically/radiologically targeted.

The "cooperation" or "socialist" genes are constitutional to a multicellular organism. It simply wouldn't do for any part of one's body to get ahead of themselves and challenge governance - the fine balance and homeostasis/harmonious ecosystem of the body.

In truth, cancer develops in the healthy many a time in their life but is usually adequately dealt with by the proper functioning immune system. Thats why patients with hiv and other immunocomprimising diseases get cancers.

So cancer is as much about the integrity of the "self : non self" axis of our inbuilt protective systems as it is about the arising of cancer in the first place.

Cancer is an inevitability in such a large multicellular complex system that is always undergoing change, but the body usually knows what's what and who needs to be removed to keep things in proper order.

So ageing in this sense is a sort of a process "losing the sense of biological self" that was established at a young age.

The young body is usually highly intolerant to invaders (cancer included) and mount a merciless attack. Even when children do get cancers many of them are highly curable for this reason. They take only a little bit of "oomf" to get going.

But as we age, our quality of composition wears down, accrues damage, and then the immune system reaches a point where it has lost its textbooks and either attacks itself or doesn't attack enough, working off an incomplete dictionary that has corrupted over time.

Maintaining innate sense of self may be down to genes, it may be down to environmental factors, hell it may even be down to psychological factors/mental processes and awareness and the brains control of its body. But we are never fully in control of all of these factors all the time. And that is our downfall.

And I guess that's why we have children. Because our system is imperfect and needs to renew as a novel individual - healthy once again (in most cases).

I suddenly remember back again this particular quote from the movie Interstellar: Murphy's law: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." Does this apply to life as well? — niki wonoto

What about "anything that can go right will go right." What exactly is the difference in the two possibilities?

For Murphys law to actually be correct, reality would have to be inherently biased towards failure, chaos and destruction.

But thats not strictly the case. Many systems, especially living ones, appear to be highly organised and coordinated and self regulated. Plenty of " things that could go right and did go right".

So Murphys law applies most to people with intense perfectionism, OCD about control and order or a job that requires creating complex systems that work. If you ask an engineer they will for sure understand Murphy law.

However if you as a mathematician or someone dealing in probabilities, a physicist or accountant maybe, Murphys law woukd likely be more of a fallacy for them.

It's a matter of opinion on a world where we apply good or bad to virtually every outcome we observe.

My wife has said some pretty harsh stuff and I've done some name calling, — Bylaw

Bit off topic but on this note of name calling/ discrete definitions, I've found using a simile is just as effective in making a point without being accused of actually defining them outright.

For example: instead of saying "Youre an assh*le!" you say "you're behaving like an assh*le would/ you're acting like assh*le". Has the same effect but separates being from action and allows you to disapprove not of them specifically/intrinsically but rather what they did a singular time.

And it reinforces the idea that it's not who they "are" and one can choose a different behaviour if they want. It's a something of a small tactic but I found people are less likely to be offended/ you can never be called a "name caller". Because you didn't explicity name them as such.

I like your work in general, but this area is a real probl — Bylaw

I learned about "sandwiching" where 2 compliments are interspersed by one criticism which softens the blow. Some people would think that uneccessary and probably prefer directness but I guess a good manager knows what tools to use where.

Ants got it right early on, so they haven't had to change much in their configuration or mode of operation order to keep adapting to new environments and changing conditions. They have somewhat fewer genes - 18,000 to our 23,000 - but it's possible that, because of the high turnover and low tolerance for maladaptation, ants are better able to afford detrimental mutation: it isn't passed on. — Vera Mont

Interesting. I would have imagined that having one sole producer of offspring would render the gene pool quite vulnerable. As one bad mutation in such an individual pairing could render the entire colony disadvantaged/defective.

This could be offset if evolution operated most importantly on chemical messenger genes. As ants are highly communicative. If this set of genes is quite small in the 18,000 it would be less subject to mutation as its insulated by a lot of non-important more mutatable "junk" dna

It's a bit like how Big Pharma has been pathologizing grief and other emotions.
The time limit on healthy grief has been going down and people are encouraged to take pills earlier in the process of grief. — Bylaw

I agree that there is certainly a conflict between business models and healthcare. One is trying to maximise profit and the other is trying to maximise well-being and often those two aims are at odds with one another.

The sad fact of this is that money is a very powerful shaper of these political and institutional dynamics, and its influence likely is impeaching on best medical practice.

However, all is not lost. Society has an excellent record of intense public outcry and backlash when any company, policy or industry pushes that little bit too far. We are also very innovative with alternative therapies.

And personal autonomy in medicine still has a core/fundamental rule over what doctors can insist you take. Grief would have to be quite extraordinary to be involuntarily medicated. Coersion is most frowned upon.

What caught me eye is cancer - we're relatively fast evolving - from apes to humans in, what?, 2.5m years? One reason why that's possible is greater genetic instability (mutation rate in our species is higher, compared to other species) and that has the downside of increased risk of malignancy. Everything comes at a price, oui mes amies? — Agent Smith

True I agree. Afterall, cancer could be considered a group of cells that found a way to adapt, survive and multiply in an environment that didn't favour their well-being for one reason or another - be it genetic instability, or poisoning: tar/nicotine, alcohol, pollution etc or insult from the body itself - inflammation and immune behaviours etc.

The cells are put under negative selective pressure and have a reactionary overcompensated counter defence. "We better multiple, steal resources and invade other areas to maximise our chances of surviving."

In other words, cancer cells drop their cooperation programming and takes on the selfish behaviour similar to that of the genes found in viruses. All it want to do is multiply, divide and conquer. A revolt against the immune system government of the body.

This makes sense when we consider the very strong link between certain viruses and cancers like hpv and cervical cancer.

So it seems like natural selection and evolution works on numerous levels and numerous time frames - from what has gone on in the past between generations of humans, to what is currently happening within our own bodies on an epigenetic/ cellular level.

I get what you're saying. I was about to point that out before fully reading your text that what causes X harm fro one person may not cause the same X harm for another. And differing beliefs on what is hurtful often is the reason for arguments. Like "oh don't be so sensitive" or "that's a bit overdramatic".

People call it gaslighting to undervalue people's clearly verbalised emotional state just because they don't feel its a justified reason to feel that way. Because if it happened to them they wouldn't feel that bad. But that fails to recinigses differences in people's sensibilities.

On the other hand people do put on a show to maximise emotional factor when they're trying to win an argument. They may not actually be offended/ hurt but will cry and say how could you say that? And that's emotional manipulation - the converse side of undervaluing feelings.

But yes, I think actions/behaviours hurt. But words also hurt and can even hurt more than actions. So the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is not really true.

Verbal abuse exists. And reacting to a punch by ripping someone's confidence to shreds and preying on their insecurities may actually be much worse/more damaging than the physical insult that precipitated it.

It's an interesting dynamic for sure.

This is where the concern for verbal reprimand comes in for failing to meet expected actions. Its hard to know when a criticism will land as a mild vocal grievance or a slap to the face/gut punch.

. I can get how this can even seem non-judgmental and compassionate, but in the end it is a form of practiced self-hatred, just as Christianity tries to teach a hatred of sexual urges. But compared to Buddhism Christianity is generally explicit and thuglike. — Bylaw

Self hatred or self restraint? Hatred is an emotion/mood which is biased and has an opposite. Apathy, stillness or the eternal middle ground would be more apt to Buddhism - neither good nor bad, it is what it is.

As far as I know Buddhism tells one to always be conscious of where an emotion towards /or attachement to something comes from and recognise that it's transient and will pass. Both the good and bad ones.

And that if you dare to feel emotions to their fullest - in pursuit of love for example, you must be prepared for the mutual opposite that that will inevitably generate when love is lost.

You can't feel happiness without feeling sadness. You can't chase thrill without being chased by boredom. So they say allow both to pass through you without dictating your behaviours/ desires ans motivations. Feel them, but try not to cling onto them.

Easier said than done. Perhaps an untenable ideal. No one can prove it for sure.

what is the "authentic reality" in this case?
The one outside the matrix, or the one you've known your whole life within it?

In my opinion, both are as real as one another. They both exist and both are a part of the whole reality as a simulation must exist in some larger set of conditions (external reality).

If a simulation mimics perfectly the physics, possibilities and outcomes of actual reality there is virtually (excuse the pun) no difference between the two. You have the same capabilities, the same autonomy to achieve or not achieve whatever you want in either case.

But if there is a clear difference - in sensation, feeling, behaviour or state of affairs (which is probably more likely) etc of the real world verses the matrix world, that is sufficient reason to warrant the consideration of what life may be like unplugged.

Our individual conscious awareness are all similar to simulations in that they are constructions of how to perceive and process the raw data of objective reality. If people have different beliefs, different body morphologies, differrment sexes, different abilities to see, feel, touch hear etc, for all intents and purposes their reality behaves differently, is reasoned/understood differently, has a different quality of meaning to others.

Just as a blind man does not experience the world the same way as able sighted people do. Describing something visual to them means little if they are blind from birth.

If everyone existed in my minds reality. It would be drastically different to their own. Some people may enjoy it, some people may hate it, and that likely reflects in who I woukd get along with if I spent time with them.

If we had failed then you wouldn't be reading this. — Bradskii

Well, true in the objective sense of course. If we failed to stay in the game we'd be extinct.

On an ethical/moral or more human perspective "how one ought to stay in the game" is open to what tactics of survival we value or deem worthy.

Parasites and viruses stay in the game effectively but their nature is generally reprehensible to us. Selfish. Feeding off a host to its detriment. Writhing bloodsuckers.

So we then face the conflict of whether we identify homo sapiens as a species to be closer to parasitic in nature, or a species who's tactic has been to mitigate our detrimental effects on nature/other organisms as little as possible.

What is the quality of our species tactic for survival? And are we more likely to bring down everything with us (destroy life on earth) or uphold a harmonious ecosystem, acting as gardeners so to speak.

All any of these scientific advancements achieve is to speed up the journey that will eventually lead to mankind’s inevitable extinction. — GBG

Damn that hits deep

If you merely express how you feel and what you think set off those feelings, I mean, you're doing them a favor. — Bylaw

That seems fair I agree. I don't think if one feels something is wrong they should do the same act in return. That would be hypocrisy because either it's okay and allowed to be done or it's not okay and you won't do it in return for that fact, but you will complain about what happened to you.

haha that's quite a use if the word presumption. In truth I think there's a lot of Interplay between "fact", "belief" "hypothesis" and "presumption" over long times and changing degrees of knowledge and insight.

They seem to be distinguished by a sort of "confidence interval" - as in how plausible or true they seem to be at that current time to the vast majority or whether they reflect consistencies we search for in our understanding of reality.

Science has declared truths or facts in the past that have since been refined, ammened or totally discredited and replaced or became just a belief or outdated presumption. Eg. The Copernican revolution in astronomy.

Beliefs are facts in the sense that beliefs exist. It is a fact that some beliefs appear more factual while others seem more unlikely.

The entire truth/the true nature of reality has been proposed many times from many disciplines but never fully adopted or unanimously accepted, none have remained unchallenged for the entirety of human existence and discourse.

It's a strange intermix.

Time is the dimension across which change occurs; it cannot exist "in a moment" but is emergent from change. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. Time does not have relevance to a single moment - where time doesn't occur. Otherwise it wouldnt be a specific moment.

It's worth noting that perceiving time requires memory/storage of and active reference to previous information. It's impossible to perceive the passage of time without a sense of past (memory).

Therefore it seems time is intrinsically linked to conciousness.

Further proof is such is the lack of simulataneity in the universe. Locations are separated by gravity, space and time. Information requires time to traverse the distance between location A and B regardless of how close they may be.

So anything that occurs at different locations can never be perceived at the exact same moment that they occurred.
Just as when we see a supernova in the sky, it likely happened a number of light-years ago but we perceive it to occur during the present moment of observation

It's only when we turn to philosophy that there is any mystery to ontology. — T Clark

I agree that reality/existence in day to day living can be taken at face value. This is the nature of culture, common ideation and the interpersonal utility of language.

It's surface level - vague, imprecise, unquestioned, unassumed and therefore useful in a day to day context.

However existence is not just surface level. It stems from the furthest/most distant origins. The most primitive, the beginning of all things. All encompassing.

Trying to apply specificity to a macroscopic scale is much more difficult then applying vaguery to the everyday microscopic scale.

Thus, big questions on existence elude us. We are not unanimous regarding it. Tiny questions of existence on the other hand - like the taste of coffee and its role in our daily lives, is less elusive, more concrete.

This is the inherent polarity of existence - it is both the most simplez straightforward and intuitive thing, and the most mysterious, simultaneously.

Philosophy tackles the complex aspect. Or perhaps, makes the simple convoluted.

But if we solve immortality, — Christoffer

Is immortality a solution or something detrimental? Immortality would be the end of bearing child on a planet of finite resources, not to mention the creeping in of boredom, impairment of the economy, inheritance, positive/advantageous evolutionary mutations etc.

Some have concluded that our modern life has detached ourselves from evolution, we don't need it anymore since we can adapt through pure will. — Christoffer

I'm not sure we are ever free of evolution. So long as we reproduce, changes/diversity will occur. Technology may release us from certain pressures forcing us to rely on it ever more. For example prescription glasses: before, people with bad eyesight would die because they didn't see the tiger standing in front of them, now prescriptions offset the pressure to have gold eyesight and thus those faulty genes are passed onto children. Technology opposes this decline km our visual acuity by compensating it, maybe it will eventually restore full vision to the blind or enhance vision in general. But then it means we are dependent on our tech for survival.

It doesn't mean evolution stops it just means that it has entered the phase of being bio-technological in nature.

, it's logical and so should we consider our consciousness. — Christoffer

I agree that our consciousness is likely the product of neccesity. How it changes in the future is difficult to predict, but its ability to create and utilise tools means the number of sensations and experiences possible for sentient beings like ourselves is sure to increase in the future - virtual reality, artificial body parts, mind uploads etc. Tech will likely be the kect frontier of sentient evolution, enabling us to expand and conquer space (something organic bodies did not evolve to do).

The imagination and predictive abilities of sci-fi have repeatedly demonstrated that our imagination is always the step just beyond what is currently possible. And many sci-fi things if the 70s/80s/90s are now real existants.

It is also presumptuous to assert that the ideas of self-sufficiency and other- dependence are coherent outside the context of human thought and understanding. — Janus

Not sure if it is presumptuous. All physical phenomena and occurrences are fundamentally presumptions by humans - in that "presumption" is a behaviour of sentient/conscious beings that can "presume".

That doesn't mean presumptions are incorrect. If we take scientific method as a source of proof of presumptions - then some presumptions (theories, hypotheses etc) have been proven to exist regardless of individual/personal subjective experience.

In that case some presumptions are facts and others are yet-to-be-proven beliefs.

. This can lead to optimization and bias of these organic particles which informs them to act in certain ways, like if a substance is hard to dilute, it struggles to be diluted, the same as organic material start to struggle to not be pulled apart. Over the course of enough time, such complex chemical systems can evolve to larger scale and enough self-programming bias makes the material promote itself to not be "diluted". It then starts to actively work against non-existence/death and form bonds and larger structures like cells in order to optimize existence — Christoffer

I love this analogy, or rather "plausible explanation". Basically natural selection not being restricted to just life arbitrarily but instead being a principle that applies from the get go of existence.

It then starts to actively work against non-existence/death and form bonds and larger structures like cells in order to optimize existence. — Christoffer

One critque however, I disagree that "working together" in becoming larger more complex systems is the only choice in natural selections cards to maintain continuity/survival of an existant.

Becoming bigger, more singular and more sophisticated does work. However staying small and multiplitous also works.

This other bias (lack of cooperation/multicellularity) is demonstrated by "static products of evolution." That is to say organisms that have remained stable and relatively unchanged for many millions of years while others have changed significantly in the same time frame.

For example viruses, bacteria, archaea and even larger organisms: crocodiles, turtles etc have changed little in their recognisable structure over many eons while others have become unrecognisable. Why is that?

I think it is down to the nature of selective pressures in evolution.

If pressures to adapt are a spectrum from a high state of pressure (rapidly changing conditions/high amounts of stress) at one end and consistent conditions/low amounts of survival stressors on the other, those organisms that experience the brunt of threat will change or adapt the most whine those that exist in the stagnant/static or stable zone will settle into a long-term niche without much change.

In summary that seems to indicate that the most complex organisms are those that faced the most challenges in existence. While uncomplex unchanging organisms are those thats design has been favoured for its indestructiblility.

If humans are considered the most sophisticated organisms, then we have had a target on our back for the duration of our evolution. Because we are the lineage that required the most effort to stay alive.

My criterion for existence is potential, probability and change (potential energy).

If the sole criterion for "potential" is to manifest all possible states the first two probabilities is a 50/50 chance of non existence and existence.

If non existence is elected first (no time, no space or matter) , it is completed, tried and tested, after that because of the need for potential to encomoass change, the only remaining probability to manifest is "existence" .

Existence offers more probabilities than non-existence, and non existence has already been completed, therefore, all further probabilities are thus existent ones.

Existence starts as a singular probability and further one's are manifested through it.

can you elaborate? Surely the processes that give rise to existence are the criteria for existence no?

oh :( I'm sorry if I'm not getting it. I could be being super obtuse rn. Don't want you to feel like you're talking to a wall.

Perhaps explain it further/elaborate, if you want? I am not completely closed off to new insight I just haven't understood where you're coming from thus far. That could be my fault, admittedly.

All I was saying is that, some parts of the universe are objects, and of that category some objects (seem to me) to demonstrate conscious awareness.

How could conscious awareness be removed from existent things? So that no objects are aware/have the capability for sentience?

My beliefs are always subject to reform and change. I'm addicted with finding out how I'm "wrong", so I may improve. — Bret Bernhoft

Same. Thats a good attitude to have. Having said that, being too influenced by others opinions may render one chasing their tail. Sometimes you gotta stick to your guns. Knowing when (for me at least) is the greatest difficulty.

the Will to build and/or grow is stronger than the Will to destroy. — Bret Bernhoft

Ah yes, the force of the continuity of life, to oppose chaos and disorder and persist as a stable, self controlled existant. I agree that "life" and the subsequent consciousness that airs es from it has a certain stubborn insistence of being unperturbed by its ever changing external environment. It prefers to adapt than die off into the abyss of non-living.

To convert this to some sort of philosophical rather than biological premise, what do you think such a will implies for conscious agents in a dead/inanimate world?

If they believe that, they should be able to explain it then. Can you — Alkis Piskas

I already did. You're conversing with a sentient object currently. Humans are physical objects with awareness. What proof of that do you need exactly, outside of common sense?

The hard problem of consciousness is hard because it tries to unify 2 incompatible things: objective measurement and subjective experience.

One method of observation is agreed on by everyone because it can be replicated and is consistent.

The other method of observation by its very nature is not replicable (individualism/personhood/"selfness").

Trying to uncover what consciousness arises out of is like trying to "precisely measure (objectify) what makes the measuring device imprecise (subjective)".

At some point the precision definition for conscious experience/awareness fails, and the vague, generalised and more intuitive intricacies of feelings, emotions, beliefs etc takeover (the subject).

Part of the difficulty with the problem is an inability of subjects to unanimously defined what their collective subjectivity fundamentally is.

as for power corrupting, I don't think power itself corrupts, individuals corrupt, when they become complacent and don't think through the impacts and consequences power can bring about. And don't act with right intentions or measured thought.

There are also corrupt poor people.

Power can be used for good or bad. Just as money can finance weaponry or charities.

Well hercules and a wealthy business man are not entirely comparable.

There are two forms of Power here: direct power - that which comes from one's innate/instrinsic talent or ability and indirect power - that which comes from the gathering/accrual of valuable assets and can be learned/harnessed by many.

For example, some people are born the strongest, fastest, most beautiful/attractive, with the best vocal range or flexibility, etc. These are traits that cannot simply be acquired by others. No matter how hard they train or refine their own base level traits.

Money on the otherhand, is a source of power that can be exchanged, possessed by anyone, to any degree. A proficiency that can be learned or done for you through investment/ employment.

So the greatest insecurity for people capitalising off pure talent is bodily harm, ageing and illness that affects their ability/ talent.

For a businessman, the greatest insecurity is theft, stock market volatility, getting sued or making poor financial choices, competitors developing something better, people manipulating you to take what you have.

There is ofc overlap. But the nature of being the strongest, tallest, etc for example is something people can witness at any given moment. The merit is self evident and the variables small.

The ability to be the most financially astute/ clever is much harder to ascertain and maintain, because at any moment, someone else could make profit hugely off manipulating your money legally, and the economic climate is forever changing and developing based on geopolitics and technology to list just a few variables.

It takes a great deal of hypervigilence and control of others to secure a stable financial state. It takes less of that and more self focus/training to run when the gun fires and collect your sponsorship paycheck when you get the gold medal.

I think it depends on whether this is a closed system of 100 people, or 100 people in a much larger populous (market) as well as whether the product is essential (a food source/food/shelter) or a luxury item.

Can you clarify those parameters?

Hermit. It's only two steps away anyhow. — Vera Mont

If they were my family or friend this is probably what I'd tell them to do also. I don't they'd be safe in society.

Assuming the people you will be saying yes to are immediate family and friends, and no is not an option, then you cannot argue, cannot get away, and so on. — Manuel

This is true, probably they woukd be heavily controlled by one person or at most a small group.

It's interesting that most likely people would be compelled to control them. The hermit offers an outcome where their only command is to go away into isolation from everyone. In that way I suppose its the best scenario because they have the most personal freedom and can survive with relative autonomy and self sufficent survival.

Probably such an instruction would come from a loved one. As keeping them around the family home I'm sure someone is likely to break in and steal them for their own devices.

I don't understand how your thought experiment connects this question to the results you express interest in. The proposal suggests we are experiencing the immediate result of such decisions. — Paine

True I suppose I jumped the gun a little bit. What I meant to say is if this yes person was just randomly wandering and doing everything they're told by any person they encounter, say after hundreds of interactions with people (a sample of the general populous) where woukd they end up.

After all those encounters would they be better off or worse off? The list was just a few ultimatums that one could imagine if they got stuck under the orders of a specific person or group.

The hermit on the other hand is a protective ultimatum where once realising this person does whatever theyre told, they're told to live far away in isolation and avoid interacting with anyone for their own safety. The celebrity could be the case if the media/news got a story on it. But I think that amount of exposure to people's commands would be very unstable.

I agree.

I believe in second chances. People do change/acknowledge community guidelines after a ban has been employed causing them to re-evaluate their approach.

I agree that contributors can be 90% of the time within the guidelines for a long period of time and for that 10% of the time falter/make mishaps for which they are banned permanently.

Not sure if this is totally just. Perhaps a temporary ban followed by a probation period is more apt.

Having said that, if someone wants to create a new account with a new email address its not that difficult, sure they have lost their philosophical history but it allows them to participate once again. A fresh start.

It's not like anyone can be permanently banned from contributing, it's account specific.

Should humanity be unified under a single government? — Marigold23

I don't see why not. If we consider that every person is equal - has a vote, has inalienable human rights, I don't see why one government couldnt satisfy that perogative.

It's certainly going that way with the way tribes have become towns, cities, kingdoms, countries and then country conglomerates (NAU, EU, UN, ASEAN, etc).

The trend of humanity historically seems to indicate we are better off in larger societies.

A global government requires firstly being a pure democracy - where there is no bias towards any one groups agenda. Secondly it requires recognising geopolitical autonomy - that is to say that the hierarchy of political decision making reflects at each tier of the hierarchy the nature of that individual area, state, region, country, continent etc. As each part of the world has different needs, cultural views, religious requirements and economic quality.

None of that precludes a global government. But stability, fairness, equality and unanimity would have to preside for it to work and prevent geopolitical revolutions and disassembly.

I don't believe humanity is at that stage of seeing eye-to-eye sufficiently yet to allow for one unified government.

The closest thing we have currently is money. Money is a universally accepted authority/power/force bar a tiny minority that live in self sustaining communes.

Well, we come back to the conflict between "I have awareness" and "objects do not have awareness" ... — Alkis Piskas

What conflict? Many people believe "objects have awareness" - whether that's perceptible awareness by us or that awareness is a fundamental part of matter.

In any case for those people there is no conflict. You don't believe this therefore for you there is a conflict. A contradiction.

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

But saying the two at the same time is redundant imo. I am a body suffices. Or I have a body suffices. I don't need to say both simultaneously as they impart relatively similar quality of information for all intents and purposes.

also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

God forbid a circle/cycle ever exist. What of it? Circular arguments are presumed to be false/nonsensical because they're circular and people don't like that logic. How can you end up back where you started? But there isn't actually any reason why it's less acceptable than a linear A to B case.

It's analogous to arguing whether the true nature of something is an infinity (circular/endless) or finite/discrete, linear A to B.

What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary. — javi2541997

There's a word for this "cognitive bias". If humans can only know what human consciousness is, the "what it is like to be" of human experience, it is difficult to believe anything else that isn't exactly the same consciousness as us has consciousness at all.

Basically we assume that consciousness is only 1 thing - "human consciousness". And we can only prove things by comparison to a standard and that standard is our own experience.

Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it.

Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents — javi2541997

I think I get you now. The "concept" doesn't exist. Yes I agree. Ideas and concepts don't exist as physical things.

If we all decided today to replace the word car with "rolly machine" then nothing will have changed. Because everyone still agrees on what word is applied to what physical thing. In this sense the word or language, the vocabulary - is arbitrary. Any word can be used in place of any other word so long as a group of people agree as to what it refers to.

Is this sort of what you meant?