Some greed is for vanity, but many of those excesses aren't perceived to be taking from the resources we all need. Super expensive watches are basically other worldly. Most of the resources people accumulate with no end in sight are common things? Cash, food, clothes, real estate. If we lived in an isolated place where no other human even visits or law enforcement or tax collector tried to interact with us would we only collect what we truly need and nothing more?

What makes an action good? Lets say there was a hod that created us all and only created us to causes us to suffer and die? If this god defines what good and best is than clearly our definition would conflict with that god's ends.

Or perhaps saving a life in the short run allows a chain of outcomes that brings a tyrant into power. There are limits to how far we can see into the future, but ultimately our action wasn't good?

I heard a study that said money doesn't buy happiness beyond $80K. What could prompt someone to do such a study if people had a clear end goal to how wealthy they wanted to be? Certainly medical bills can bankrupt virtually anymore. I still think it is the fear of losing what one has that compells them to continue accumulating wealth and other resources almost regardless of those that might be in greater need. What special quality must one have to give nearly all one has freely? To serve others at or above serving oneself?

Nothing we make will live long after us. DaVinci's Mona Lisa isn't nearly as crisp as it once was. Hasn't even been a thousand years. Our accomplishments shouldn't be physical. Nothing lasts here.

Life can be mundane and it feels like our choices and actions make small difference. This is the appeal of superhero movies. These are people of robust action. That is what highlights the men. Nurturing traits are less short term oriented and might be seen as less interesting but are important in their own way.

There are many people with genius IQs out there. I don't think most of them are responsible for the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Odds are good they elected to do their own thing even if they could of done more for the world.

Master Splinter really helped Michelangelo chill out.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz1n0RHwLqA

Here's a video on simple versus complex and its relationship with order versus chaos.

But was there anything special about the ancient one in this main universe we follow? Or could a universe that is identical except that the ancient one survived just as significant? Why would any particular one in an infinite number of universes that rarely interact matter that much?

In the "what if..." series they covered Infinity stones only working in their particular universe. And of course in Loki at the TVA they are all powerless there. They also brought back the ancient one in some type of "echo" form.

So far I think only in Deadpool 2 did they represent an afterlife in the MCU.

In what way? Assuming there are an infinite number of universes wouldn't there be just as many universes in which she/he survived as died?

So why would the rest of the multiverse care that this particular one died?

Thanks but I understand the geometry. I was just assuming ethereal lovers were imagining something real versus thought stuff only.

What is metaphysical? Just like virtual particles that can become real in our scientific sense? Is spiritual stuff outside of both physical and metaphysical stuff?

Thought experiments are one thing, but people who straight up claim that death or even astral projection can show us these higher dimensions is quite another?

I see. I know Americans aren't the most liberal in the sex department, but generally I don't know of anyone going to jail for anything unless it does involve nonconsent.

Anyone else in this forum take an active interest in NDEs?

Can I DM you? I would really like your references to NDEs and the Harvard study concerning hallucinations you mentioned.

When he describes materials like sodium, potassium, silicone, etc changing proportions without it being clear where the extra stuff is coming from.

My thought too, but is there anything wrong with the math?

Ok. Thanks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGZSC8odIU

This seemed just about as thorough as they get.

How many people would you imagine have had NDEs? According to Dr. Bruce Greyson they pretty much all tell about their experience to everyone like a preacher and their behaviors in life are ever changed (sounds like for the better). The only exception he mentions are the scary NDEs which he says are few. I can't imagine being quiet about something so profound that seems so real.

Where have you found the NDEs testimonials? And what Harvard study concerning hallucinating?

Possibly, but I think people generally go with one or the opposite.

Is my question unreasonable? The spirit wouldn't leave the body unless it was in rough shape? I truly want to believe in conscious existence after physical death. But there seems to be a lot of space between those that believe NDEs are evidence of that, and what I perceive as the majority of those in this forum.

If 90% (likely more) of people that are clinically dead and will likely stay dead without medical intervention don't have NDEs, how can it not be considered that 10% are imagining an experience that is only imagined? If the body is uninhabitable to some type of "spirit body" why wouldn't OBEs be much more the standard?

If 100 people are clinically dead for a time and only 10% have the experience how doesn't that cast doubt onto the legitimacy of it representing consciousness outside of the body? Why can't it just as easily be imagined?

"some consciousness source"? What does this mean? Are you suggesting we don't have consciousness of our own? A loan of some kind?

I think biologist Dr. George Church thinks he can modify our code just enough not to change us, but to make us unfamiliar to pretty much all viruses. Hopefully any such thing helps us and doesn't doom us.

That's some Dr. Strange stuff. Lol.

Largely primates. Got ya. Few enough that we considered having apposable thumbs a milestone that isn't taken for granted.

My first thought was, is that Ringo Starr? Turns out it was. Lol.

Evolutionary pressures aside, is a more advanced hand imaginable?

You are stating language to necessarily be a more advanced form of consciousness and therefore a successor only?

First off, nobody can experience zero gravity. Secondly all we can do is count all the people who were clinically dead for a time being and if less than 20% of them have NDEs why can't that suggest imagination being involved to pacify the ego during a crisis whether or not they mentally realize it? Also of course memories can form as soon as a person starts to wake and they can easily mistaken the when of when the memories were actually created.

Maybe expand "language" to any intention? Don't we intend or want something before we interpret the associated emotions and then consider the words needed to express our intention. Couldn't intention itself be a kind of language and eventually we have to use a language that others can understand as well?

There was at least one person that believed the language part of the brain (I assume Broca's area) was the source of consciousness. Now I think it might be thought to be near the brain stem.

Wayfarer has covered this topic?

Glad you finally got an appropriate avatar. Lol.

Isn't M theory a good thing? It tries to combine all aspects of previous string theories into a single thing? Also what else can a theoretical physicist do except make predictions? They generally don't do the experiments?

So Michio assumes too much might be possible when there isn't enough to open that door, or he is fantasizing too much on impractical ideas that might not serve us anytime soon? What is his fault?