Maybe we have a "Divine Sense" but it is not "new" as much as you have recently discovered it. One might identify this sense as an inner light; one might also identify it as the loving presence of Jesus or the Holy Spirit, or an inner illumination. Various terms in various traditions. — Bitter Crank

It's very likely that "divine senses" are radically different objectively, and probably subjectively. I say that it is the role of ethics to judge them all. Almost all will be found wanting.

. If your life is good in any given moment, then it can only be good in that given moment. It's as simple as that. — TranscendedRealms

It's all very well defining good and bad. But what are the implications here?

There will be times when there is a clash between what some regard as good as some as bad; the fact that all parties feel good about their decisions/viewpoints doesn't really help to resolve the differences.

. Lastly, for a person who obtains positive emotions from harming others, he would be a new age hedonist. But he would be misusing the power of the light for wrongdoing. — TranscendedRealms

So surely this "wrongdoing" must be defined objectively before you can say you have an objective morality?

This is because emotions are forms of motivation that make things matter to us. — TranscendedRealms

What about a person who experiences joy - all the feel-good effects of the mood hormones in fact - through inflicting suffering on others? Are they a new age hedonist?

Is there an aspect(s) of the conscious experience that we are not automatically aware of, or that our culture suppresses? — Crane

Really good visual dreams show us what we are capable of enjoying, but few people seem interested in seeking these experiences out in waking life, I would say.

FWIW on reflection I would say that emotions are sometimes reduced in dreaming.

The last dream I remember was one I occasionally get - about being back at school (as a rather mature student) in order to improve on a couple of grades, but not really looking like I will be able to scrape a pass even. But I always win this one out as I gradually realise the pointlessness of it, and that in reality I am not letting anyone down and all that rubbish by walking away. I wake up to the pleasant sensation of feeling in control of my life.

:) But is the fear really related to the explicit dream material or is it a fear of the repressed being made explicit?
But yes, I guess fear is part and parcel of dreaming. Not sure about other emotions... or what even counts as an emotion. Erotic pleasure and super confidence can appear in dreams, if one is lucky...

Well ... I think that perhaps the emotions are considerably reduced in dreams in order for us to afterwards take in the lessons on offer. How else could you turn up at the office naked?

lol! That wouldn't do it, obviously.

Does the computer the simulation runs on matter? — Marchesk

For consciousness, maybe this is necessary .......

The emergent behavior can model itself.

the size of the observable universe." — Michael

yeah, but that's titchy!

Sure, but we don't. — Michael

And there's the rub ....
I think you would struggle to show that there are more consistent BB scenarios than there are suitable variant universes of all the physical constants, say....

Given the above, I don't think so. We only have reason to believe that we are not in an inconsistent Boltzmann brain scenario. — Michael

Given you agree that an inconsistent BB is far more likely than a consistent one, we should expect to live in an inconsistent one rather than a consistent one, regardless of whether BBs outnumber non BBs.

Any thoughts — Michael

There are vastly more Boltzmann brain scenarios that are inconsistent than there are that are consistent. Tegmark suggests for example, if our memories recall a famous piece of music as white noise then we might well have reason to believe we are a BB. Otherwise, not.

I can only see two aspects of consciousness: sensory and cognitive.. — Crane

And emotional surely?

I think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population. — MikeL

Dawkins would refute that a "purer" altruism is not possible in humans, and does so explicitly in the later (I think) editions of "The Selfish Gene" as a response to all the hoohaa. I think he says that human beings can transcend their genes in a sort of gestalty way.

do we prefer having nightmares and or bad dreams over not dreaming? — XanderTheGrey

In the sense that bad dreams can be interpreted as pointers to improving your mindset or whatever, yes I think so.

Buildings are stable and consistent. ....

I think the net has real potential to apply utilitarian calculuses that would have constituted mere thought experIments in yesteryear's philosophy textbooks. For example, Democracy Earth has developed a blockchain app that allows for exciting new ways of voting and garnering votes.

Can a polygamous/polyandrous society provide stable families and safe, healthy children? — T Clark

Provided it is an/the accepted norm. Social (dis) approval heavily influences how people feel about themselves.

I think good dreams are a bit like good experiences with certain types of drugs. Maybe they work in similar ways ... connecting up brain areas in novel ways, so that emotions and sensory appreciation seem novel.

I'm just wondering whether scientists are holding the wrong side of the bat. Have they even tried something as simple as I've suggested viz. connecting together a bunch of wires with some fixed set of protocols as to how a signal traverses the network and then connect an output device to the network to see what happens? This doesn't sound too expensive to me. — TheMadFool

Memristors are where it's at, apparently.... some materials are being developed that can be used to create artificial neurons and synapses that work in a pretty similar way to the real thing.Say hello to "neuromorphic engineering".

According to the "many worlds" interpretation of the Schrodinger wave function, a "true" random outcome(i.e. a quantum one) is only subjectively real - because a clone doesn't know she is a clone living in a cloned world. The overall reality is that all the possible outcomes generate multiple worlds.

Whether this is true or not, it is at least a feasible justification for a supra-form of determinism, given the apparent randomness of quantum events.

Psychologically, determinism doesn't bother me because I know it is irrelevant to my life...

Is feminism a sort of tribalism?

If the wise man isn't happy, what's so great about wisdom? — 0af

He might realize that many others aren't happy...

The lower the expectations of life, the higher the probability that you will find happiness. — szardosszemagad

It's nice when one becomes distraught at losing one's keys/purse etc because of the joy of finding it again. Not sure how quickly it is a repeatable experience though ...

I can't believe what passes for philosophy around here. — szardosszemagad

hehe I thought you had Sapientia on the rails but he pulled a draw out of the bag when he said that people's point in living is to enjoy their lives. Such a "purpose" is not very high fallutin' of course, but you never asked for that.

the metaphysics of physics — apokrisis

The best sort then :)

Motion doesn't make sense without space and time, and space and time don't make sense without motion. — apokrisis

Is that physics or metaphysics, may I ask? I mean, it is possible from string theory to have universes of space without time I believe ... and 4 dimensional universes with 2 dimensions of time ...

If you are interested in a deeper level explanation of inertial motion, then the standard physics route is spelt out by Noether's theorem. — apokrisis

It's a useful insight i guess but doesn't really help explain whether velocity is intrinsically encoded within an object, rather than measured as an effect over time.

it should be possible to determine which object has the highest velocity relative to the other, which one is moving away the fastest.
If this is possible, it should be also be possible to create a hierarchy of energy states for identical objects and perhaps even come out with a baseline energy configuration (lowest mass), therefore grounding relativity at reference point — MikeL

Nice try to restore classical physics but space and time don't work like that in the large. Locally, and relative to one observer - yes. I am a beginner on relativity, but I think it is essential to try and grasp what the implications for space and time not being absolute are. (Bertie Russell does a good job IMO in one of his Sceptical Essays - the one called "Philosophy in the 20th century). It's a tricky journey and I am still making it!

I still think you don't need a point to live. You will provide a point or an alleged point when forced, or questioned, but that is not a "need" per se. — szardosszemagad

Perhaps you need a point to live well?

I see Mike ... well I have to confess that my interest must wane then, because the issue for me is what is motion, rather than acceleration.....

That sounds good advice CasKev. I'm sure depression is a misery and my sympathies lie with anyone suffering from it. (Not sure I have so much sympathy for JG's viewpoint however!)

A good reason to live is that change is excitng and change can only be witnessed, discovered, experienced or initiated by the living.

One day the universe will be cold and dead-full of the permanent meaningfulness that some people seem to crave. But not today! Thankfully we are allowed the "impermanent meaningfulness " referred to by @Bitter Crank

I am troubled that the field represents both velocity and acceleration
....

we would need a time value on our input boxes, say 20000 joules over 5 seconds. — MikeL

The problem is that kinetic energy, being based on speed, is relative, because speeds are relative. You can't escape having to think about what the final speed is relative to!

hmmmm ... OK..... but do you really mean leaping into continuous acceleration or do you mean leaping to a steady velocity?

If we start with the premise that you can type an energy field and direction into an object and have it spring into acceleration - is that a feasible premise irrespective of time? — MikeL

Suppose you type in "100 m/s " ..... 100 m/s relative to what though?