Funny result. — Hanover

Not at all.

An AI recalls Yuval Noah Harari's argument for me that Homo sapiens' survival and dominance were largely due to their ability to create and believe in shared fictions—stories, myths, and collective beliefs that allowed large groups to cooperate.

Unlike other human species (like Neanderthals), who mainly relied on direct personal relationships, Homo sapiens could unite thousands or even millions of people under abstract ideas, such as religions, nations, money, and laws. These shared fictions helped create trust and large-scale collaboration, giving Homo sapiens an evolutionary advantage.

So in a way, our survival and success depended not just on raw intelligence but on our ability to believe in things that don't physically exist, like gods, borders, and economies.

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, but just the result of various reactions over time (a cosmic coincidence) that will eventually result in my death and return to my constituive parts (decayed orderly cellular composition back to dust). — Hanover

I'm suggesting that stories give things meaning. For example, if you ask a theologian why God created the Moon, they might say its purpose is to control Earth’s tides—assuming they are aware of the science. The scientific explanation itself has a narrative structure, offering meaning and coherence, regardless of any theological interpretation layered onto it.

Then don't choose to belive in eternal rewards. I've not dictated a theology. — Hanover

I didn’t suggest that you were dictating a theology. I simply expressed my view. To be clear, “a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust” also sounds rather meaningless to me. Meaning is in the stories, whether religious or secular.

2) are the purpose of koans to bring out faith? — Gregory

They certainly require faith. They may or may not enhance it, if that’s what you mean. Ideally, for the sake of the religion, they would enhance faith.

I'm not just a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust. — Hanover

Honestly, a planed existence awaiting an eternal reward sounds rather meaningless to me. The story of the existence would be meaningful I’m sure.

Just a little doodle of a feeling I had the other day. The yellow lines are the double yellow lines of a road.

Love it. :lol:

I think if one were to adapt, and remove that word, one is not fit to adapt it. — AmadeusD

Ain’t nothin’ but a pile o’ words, not no holy book or such. I reckon ol’ Twain wouldn’t bat an eye ‘bout swappin’ one word for ‘nother.

Why not? — AmadeusD

Well, reckon folks steer clear o’ usin’ that word in “Huck Finn” nowadays ‘cause it’s mighty hurtful. Back in Twain’s time, it was common talk, but now it stings somethin’ fierce, remindin’ folks of bad times and ugly ways. Some swap it out or leave it be altogether, figurin’ it ain’t worth keepin’ if it’s gonna hurt folks. Others use it for learnin’, talkin’ ‘bout how things used to be so folks don’t go forgettin’. Either way, it’s a tricky business tryin’ to honor the past without hurtin’ folks in the here and now.

One thing’s fer certain, ain’t no adaptation gonna have that n-word in it, no matter how grown-up it tries to be.

I’m a-readin’ The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by that Mark Twain feller right now, an’ while it’s a mighty fine story, it’s got me jawin’ like a country boy somethin’ fierce. But I ain’t fixin’ to go usin’ that n-word though, no sir.

Byeeee.

If I mix two things together, and consider the result science but someone else considers it a function of the unknowable divine, who is to say who is wrong? — MrLiminal

Science is concerned with right and wrong.

Religion is concerned with group unification.

If a fictional narrative unites a group then disproving that narrative will make it loose its meaning and threaten group integrity.

It's fairly common for religious people to think that non-religious people are leading meaningless, aimless, worthless lives. — baker

Religious people are lead to believe all sorts of things. That doesn’t make what they believe true.

From the perspective of (some of) the religious, it is nihilistic, by definition so. — baker

What do you mean “by definition”? That isn’t the definition of nihilism.

The point I aim to make is that not believing in life after death, or being a materialist, or non-religious, is not nihilism. To believe that it is nihilism is denying reality and a rather extreme view, a grasping view.

What could be more nihilistic than to believe that life is suffering and the only way to escape the endless cycle of life and death is the complete extinguishment of everything that makes you you.

I think I would have expected your favorite to be less dark.

I'm listening to the audiobook and the richness of it is made a little richer with Kenneth Branagh reading.

:up:

The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution by Francis Fukuyama

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami

So much for the social contract ... — baker

I can't speak for other nations but the majority in the U.S. favor access to abortion. Just this month seven states passed legislation supporting women's right to choose. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say,"So much for the social contract..."

Where in the world is there a place where people won’t kill other people? In the United States the federal death penalty applies in all 50 states and U.S. territories. There was around 20k murders in the U.S. last year.

Progressivism really is like a secular religion, complete with the Paradise of Power to the People through Big Brother Federal Government. Republicans are the party of the immoral, selfish and stupid. Dems are the party of the morally upright, the community based, and the brilliant thinkers. — Fire Ologist

It seems rather contemptuous of religion to reduce it to mere political and social philosophy.

Looking at that giant ideology gap between young men and women in South Korea made me think of the 4B movement that started there around 2017-2018. I happened to read something about it the other day. The movement is supposedly getting some traction in the US since the election.

I’m a liberal Democrat. I don’t like losing elections and we shouldn’t be. Democrats govern and Republicans destroy. We should be the majority party, but we’re not. Here are some suggestions about how we might go about fixing this. — T Clark

Frankly, I don’t think the current state of affairs allows significant fixing. Democrats will have a comeback after Trump/Republican policies destabilize the economy, there’s a downturn, and Americans look to the alternative party to get out of the hole. Rinse and repeat.

Most abortion debates get nowhere because they're focusing on the personhood status of the unborn or the lack of such status, rather than looking at the intention for abortion and the implications of such intention. — baker

What are the implications?

Thats only a problem if you believe value derives from evolution, a proposition you presented but which I dont hold. — Ourora Aureis

If not evolution then from God?

You even mentioned social and cultural factors yourself, but then you immediately overule them with the gene propagation idea. — Ourora Aureis

I wrote that valuing human life is ingrained and the reason (you requested reasoning) I think it's ingrained is because it promotes gene propagation and the survival of our species.

I already presented why I think people hold these values, and its mostly a case of religious philosophy, not some innate emotional reaction that derives from their biology. — Ourora Aureis

I thought you were asking me why I value zygotes. Granted religious thought has been somewhat ingrained in me even though I've never really been religious.

There's a bit of all-or-nothing slight of hand going on… — Banno

There’s a lot of really bad slight of hand going on. According to Malcolm Gladwell, it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master a complex skill.

If your entire position is without any rational thought and is simply driven directly by your genes, then Im not sure how you would defend it or even justify it to yourself. It also is a false scientific explanation, since zygotes are a part of modern knowledge that couldnt have evolved into our psyches, which you can see by the vast majority of humanity having no emotional issue with zygote termination. — Ourora Aureis

If it were necessary for zygotes to have ‘evolved into our psyches’ then there couldn’t be a minority that values them.

Alright, have it your way. Why do I value human life? I think it’s deeply ingrained, shaped by a mix of biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors. I think the reason valuing human life is ingrained in me is basically because it promotes gene propagation and the survival of our species.

Looking forward to your counter argument.

they’d kill him — NOS4A2

Via inept SS?

It seems like there’s a point to these questions so please, let’s skip to the point.

From what you just said, I'm assuming I was wrong and that you value life from conception? — Ourora Aureis

I never kid about zygotes.

Your point being that if I value persons I should also value zygotes? I do value zygotes.

I recognize the image on the right as a person. I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?
—praxis

The one on the left is what the one on the right looked like about 9 months earlier. In those 9 months, what changed for you? — NOS4A2

I recognize the image on the right as a person and I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.

I don’t want us to have to talk about my crappy reasoning yet, — Fire Ologist

I doubt waiting will improve it. I’ll just assume that, like myself, you don’t recognize the image on the left as a person.

What are those qualities, besides Caucasian, and hair? — Fire Ologist

We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?
— praxis

Absolutely not. Probably a bottomless pit. — Fire Ologist

:roll:

Again, this provides no insight into why an adult and a baby are both persons, but a zygote is not. — Fire Ologist

Babies and adults have qualities that match my concept of ‘person’.



I assume by not answering that you do not recognize the image on the left as a person just as I don’t recognize it as a person.

Basically, why do you think a new born baby is a person? — Fire Ologist

I already explained because I recognize it as such.

What “personal” things are you recognizing about a new born baby? — Fire Ologist

We can see many personal things about the baby in the picture. It looks caucasian, has light hair, etc.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?