How so? What if one is a brave warrior and they are hand picked by the tribe to be the leader. A position they didn't seek or want, but will use to serve the people?

Couldn't thought be the logical and orderly pattern of things that are predictable while emotion is always the reaction towards the unpredictable that hasn't yet been fit into the system of expected? Both thought and emotion are reactions? Perhaps the latter seems more spontaneous, but they both rely on external ideas? I would argue all thought are always accompanied by emotion. Stronger emotion makes the thought memorable, weak emotion makes it humdrum. And if it were zero noticeable emotion perhaps subconscious?

If one had unlimited power couldn't they granted themselves unlimited knowledge so they understood what they are in power of? Otherwise it would have no meaning? And knowledge begets more questions and so forth?

So than why isn't emotion considered apart of thoughts? We can't actually know the moment a thought starts or is complete and ready for publishing. So who says the two aspects aren't apart of the same thing?

That's exactly my point. Without emotions we die. Sentimentality asides.

It can cut both ways, but if it doesn't cut at least one way we'd die.

Can we do anything without emotion? We certainly wouldn't feel motivation. So if we would otherwise die without one aspect of the mind, why seperate emotion from thinking as a process? Can't it be argued that all conscious mental process of the brain are thoughts?

Ok doky.

We have evolved already though. I am forward thinking here. Age researchers think we may someday slow or reverse many aspects of aging so it isn't as hypothetical. I am just wondering how it might change our perspective of life. Will we be happier and more free in our lives, or will it be more like Futurama (the show) when antiaging technology exists but suicide booths are a thing. Lol.

If we were immortal we wouldn't need to choose as carefully what gives us a strong dopamine dense experience. Sure things would be repeated many times, but their sense of novelty doesn't really need to fade. We can probably think outside of the box if immortality is also outside of the box.

My concern of a life of roughly known duration can be cut into sections by society by what we should be doing when in order to be productive for society at the highest level before we're too old to be useful anymore. But if we never really get old we can't be squeezed so hard in the first half of life and have less to show for it.

Always a scary thought to lose memories. 90 year olds often forget ever having had parents which is utterly crazy. Lets just assume memories aren't lost.

I think sky diving can still be a powerful experience even if we were immortal. The force of the wind and being in a sky that is larger than even the oceans would surely be profound. We would still be very small in the universe.

So one could live forever (assuming they don't trip into a bus) and have a life full of value and joy? If the concern of some is that infinite life can't be relative to anything with today's math that it is less precious and has less value it could still have phases. It could be divided into sections no matter how many sections there are. Not like rings around trees (unless you're a Kardashian), but our appearance could hypothetically change in an infinite life. Lets even consider we all live hypothetically infinitely but we find a mortal way to die before we can prove it. Lol. Life is what we make of it no matter the duration?

What is the significance of the double slit experiment if a human observation isn't needed to collapse the wave function? Does that only show that the electrical measuring device interfered with the photons or electrons when they passed through?

So a person's fear of say spiders can be the result of hereditary epigenetics of living in a jungle as well as first hand confrontation with dangerous spiders. Can this fear of spiders have a 3rd cause or by definition does nature and nurture already cover 100% of the ven diagram?

Yes I was asking if the human mind is special in relation to the physical world. When I first heard about the double slit experiment it gave me hope that our thoughts are more than just random electrical signals in a brain, which has always seemed too unreliable from a psychological point of view.

So if we sent 1 photon at a time at the slits and try to detect which slit they go through it would collapse the wave function whether or not a person checks the hard drive of results to compare against the background pattern?

I was just being lazy. I just meant to talk about human science only. Not like chemistry and physics which try to stay independent of psyche.

I was curious about how many ways to describe how we ultimately become as we do. A 3rd category if per se nature and nurture aren't arranged to cover everything by themselves?

A friend told me about "dark empaths" which are basically people who can read other people's emotions very well, so not a sociopath, however they use that information to do harm instead of altruism. I assume hubris is a huge factor.

As for Gilgamesh I found it weird that he could be 2/3 a God and yet not immortal at the least.

But as it was described in the text his behaviors were considered subpar. Not just my modern observation. Until he met that other dude he was kind of a twat. Lol.

I was thinking once. If light speed is the fastest speed we can measure, and everything we measure seems relative to it. What if there was a higher energy matter in a world we can't observe in which light is actually one of the slowest things.

https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/hints-of-the-4th-dimension-have-been-detected-by-physicists/


Well here's one thing.

Some physicists suggest that time might be 2 dimensional which may allow time travel. And not everyone can agree on 10 dimensions. Some say fewer, some say 11 or 12. Is assigning concepts of reality like versions of how things happened, and places where physics rules are very different. Is it reasonable to connect them to this numbering scheme?

Yeah, not sure when that starts. Lol.

Coincidence that the music guy describing 10 dimensions based on string theory only described 10 dimensions?

What is the dichotomy between selfish and selfless? Behaviors have many outcomes. Our intentions might be singularly focused around our needs, but sometimes that predictability can be a service to other people to lower their expectations. Lol. Can we ever be 100% selfish while accepting other people around us as sentiment?

After I turned 28 I also felt a downturn in my life. But I think that is biological and energies and function isn't really the same anymore. So adaptation to a slightly new psychology might be necessary. Speaking for myself my life also isn't where I thought it would by even 10 years ago standards. Things in life happen and many of our stories are a lot more similar than we would assume. I don't know if I would even be in this forum if the world seemed doable enough without these outside points of view. I find most changes that need to be made are internal before the external ones can be touched. And if it interests you I have found the YouTube channel "The School Of Life" (https://www.youtube.com/c/theschooloflifetv/videos) to be fairly uplifting on many topics of concern.

George Washington vaccinated his troops so a virus wouldn't kill them first. Vaccines are very safe. Particularly compared to things people often use regularly.

Do we currently have an answer to what gives life meaning that we can be sure would be lost if we were immortal? I also mean eternal health so maybe a very rare colonoscopy.

Nobody said we need to make a deal with a Greek deity who are known for their plays on words. Certainly a life of rolling a bolder isn't terribly meaningful. But that doesn't mean we're doomed towards monotony. We can still forget things to a degree and experience them anew. But maybe our attempt at a search for meaning wouldn't always be in such a common direction. Maybe we could create greater varieties in our pursuits to that end? We could even elect to not seek meaning. Just experience all that exists. That much could take 100s of years on earth alone.

I know I called this inbetween a "simulation" right off the bat, but that is only because it doesn't drive our experience. The real reality in the background creates this hypothetical simulation and decides outcomes. The simulation is like the delivery boy.

When it comes to our own eyes our retinas do not register every photon that enters our eyes. Even in the central vision's densely packed 3 degrees of vision. And in any event reality only leaves a limited impression on us. Even objects like our fingers don't touch things. We only feel the repulsion of electrons in our atoms.

Is it reasonable that a reality driven simulation of equal complexity is more real than our human takeaway from any reality we can experience? Or is it fake simply because it can't drive itself without reality in the background to mimic?

What various definitions of consciousness are there? Are all animals conscious? Trees? Cities? The moon?

That is a matter of a proper statement. I am assuming asking the right question is always the issue. A 6 and a 9 are the same shape so if the statement is whether or not it is this shape than it would be true so long as you don't get too specific on a meaning a particular number may have.

When I was asking about true or false, true and false, and neither true nor false I was referring to statements. Things that are objective and not opinions. I was watching a video in which the talker was saying sometimes things are neither or both true and false at the same time. Particularly in reference to more eastern philosophy. I assume in the west we prefer things to be more strictly true or false?

From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE

Made me think of the latest vsauce video when you mentioned that paradox.

This post in general is about any confidence that gets into the realm of absolute. But in terms of a handful of women that think their beauty is certain I am annoyed when they give a gesture to indicate that this was something they already knew and are neither complimented or disgusted by the words. It seems to show a lack of empathy.

People also say a person is beautiful inside and out when both apply but never say they are beautiful on the inside (in a public manner anyway) when only one applies.

Surely there are women or men that think they are qualified for say a sales job because they are attractive even if they know this isn't a skill set. It is unfounded confidence that annoys me. Whether it is billionaires thinking they have all the skills mom and pop businesses wish they had, or doctors from an Ivy league school that don't think conversing with a more average person could inspire any knew knowledge. My point is confidence beyond a certain point surely must be wasteful.

I don't require gratefulness for a compliment. My point is some people think their beauty is factual in all circumstances. And as far as complimenting someone on their personality that would be my first approach if I knew them well enough at that point.

It doesn't threaten me. I just think people shouldn't blind themselves with things that are empty and aren't accomplishments.