I continue to think that perhaps I’m missing some understanding that’s obvious to everyone else and when finally pointed out to me will dissolve my theory into nothing, but everything I read seems to support the theory from a certain angle, while remaining ignorant of the whole picture. — Possibility

The first thing that comes to mind for me, and I could be way off-base from not fully grasping your theory, is that what’s at the core of human morality, and perhaps everything human, may simply be procreation. So if human awareness, connection, and collaboration are fundamental to the universe then the universe is all about procreation? In what sense could that be seen as true, assuming the thought is not wildly off-base?

They have the same rights as white people but harder prerequisites to abide by the core values of the white man. — EpicTyrant

The core values of the white man expressed in systematic racism, for instance?

Talking to a ghost...

You leftists are utterly deluded and seldom get anything right, but just to make things simple for you...there will be a reaction against the rioting and looting that is being encouraged by leftist organisations. — Chester

Part of the reaction is controlled by an ass with far more influence than any intelligent society should empower, proving beyond doubt that it’s not an intelligent society. The asinine narrative is full of bravado (appealing to insecure types like yourself) and focuses entirely on the violence of one side of the issue and completely ignores the violence of the other side, and does so for the singular and selfish purpose of maintaining power and wealth (a second term), utterly regardless of the damage this may do to society, or perhaps mindful of it, being that a fractured society is easier to control. Divide and conquer is the strategy that you mindlessly assist and don’t benefit from.

If the hard left thinks this is going to work out well for them then they are even bigger cunts than I already think they are. — Chester

It’s not a plan. It’s not rational. Read the fucking signs if not the actual words. They can’t breathe.

I’ll read about it though.
— praxis

Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread? — Gnomon

Offense, eccentricity, or your approach to anything is beside the point, as I've mentioned several times my concern is communication, and the issue started with your claim that metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse. That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics.

From what I understand Information theory is not your theory. In general though, my impression is that it's merely a way of looking at things. A hammer can be a hammer, or a paperweight, or a weapon, or information, etc etc etc. When you want salt you don't say, "please pass the information," you ask for salt. One the other hand, what is salt but information, or rather, patterns of sense data that a brain has been trained to recognize as salt.

To say that anything is one thing or another is dualistic and itself an event that necessarily has a purpose. It makes no difference if something is information or anything else if there is no purpose for making the distinction.

Did an advanced search for 'fifth dimension' posted by Posibility and read several posts from various topics.

Fifth dimension is affected. I happen to be familiar with modern neurological models so I'm able to appreciate this relatively well, I believe. The theory of constructed emotion was a real mind-bender for me. Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons.

If nothing else, I at least now understand why Possibility chose Possibility for a name, out of all the possibilities.

If it were I wouldn’t have mentioned it.

To Sever & Protect?

PS___Since you're so smart, can you explain to me what Possibility's Fifth Dimension is? — Gnomon

You’ve repeatedly shown that I can’t explain anything to you. I’ll read about it though.

I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. — Gnomon

Someone who remains willfully ignorant about a concept like metaphysics is called a troglodyte. And are you suggesting that you deliberately obfuscate to appear smart? I have gotten that impression, actually.

I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky. — Gnomon

What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again?

Clear case of one rule for mods and another for others - .
— I like sushi

It is. This is how they want to do it though. Vote with your feet.

I’ll just talk with my feet.

Hello reddit :)
— I like sushi

:up: — frank

This is a public gesture, Frank. You don't say anything about taking a break for reasons not directly related. Lie to yourself all you want. I don't like being lied to.

Unless posts were deleted or are located somewhere else I don't see the baiting.

The point is that it's probably not a good idea to have mods baiting people into suicide by mod. — ChatteringMonkey

A case for that can't be made, assuming the baiting posts involved were in the systematic racism topic. What am I missing?

People organizing to protect a Target store. Well, it at least proves that people have the ability to cooperate and get what they deserve.

Vote with your feet. — frank

The gesture would seem much nobler if the high principled would at least wait for someone a bit better than Chester to be banned. Shouldn't have to wait long.

Anyone who has spent more than 100 words sweating over looting and not - I dunno - the fact that someone got murdered in broad daylight, can all go to hell. — StreetlightX

I remember learning that around three million children die of malnutrition each year and thinking, ‘how did I not know that? how does everyone not know that?’ No good answers but apparently we can all live with it.

It's far less bad than, as you say, the incalculable suffering caused by systematic racism that is now symbolized by the George Floyd murder. — Pfhorrest

I don't see how it can be said to be an overreaction then.
— praxis

Because "overreaction" doesn't mean "worse than what it's a reaction to". — Pfhorrest

If we must consult the dictionary, it means a more emotional or forcible response than is justified. Justified means having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

What you're calling an overreaction is "far less bad" than what it's a reaction to but is nevertheless an overreaction because it's unjustified. Unjustified means not shown to be right or reasonable. Reasonable means having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

I think we can all agree that violent rioting is not fair or sensible, but then we can also agree that murder by police is not fair or sensible and that systematic racism is not fair or sensible. So maybe we can stop talking about fairness and sensibility and start talking about the emotional response.

You think that the emotional response is an overreaction. Okay, but you must be able to see how others may not see it that way.

"This is not an overreaction" sounds to me like "this is the appropriate, just, and fully warranted response", in other words, "it's perfectly okay". — Pfhorrest

I have no words...

Fortunately for you then, a lack of self-awareness doesn't violate the Term of Service.

No-one came out and drew any lines as to where justified protest ends, in this case or generally. — Echarmion

I think there are pretty clear lines where lawful police force ends and brutality begins. There are also legal lines that appear to be designed to sustain an underclass in our society. Is anyone saying that's okay?

Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion... — Gnomon

Sure, do whatever you have to in order to understand science, philosophy, and religion better, but again, if you want to be understood, learn the meaning of words and use them appropriately. Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here.

he was concerned I was drunk — Baden

To be fair, you are Irish, right?

It's far less bad than, as you say, the incalculable suffering caused by systematic racism that is now symbolized by the George Floyd murder. — Pfhorrest

I don't see how it can be said to be an overreaction then. Particularly since the situation doesn't seem to be improving. In fact, we seem to be sliding backward of late.

But just being less bad than that doesn't make it perfectly okay. — Pfhorrest

What is this either/or? has anyone actually said it was okay?

Anyway, Godwin's law says it's time for me to bail.

That's just plain favoritism. :razz:

No.

Trolling is deriving amusement, or perhaps in some cases rubles, from riling up an unsuspecting audience. Good hooks are anything that questions a person's morality, status, intelligence, consistency, and things of that nature. Good hooks are subtle and practically force a response. Bad hooks are pathetically obvious (think @Chester) and easily ignored.

Poor wording on my part. Please allow me to rephrase.

Destruction of unrelated storefronts, including ones owned by people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves, or especially (in that video posted earlier) some homeless guy's mattress, is not justified. — Pfhorrest

You appear to evaluate this to be an overreaction to the incalculable suffering caused by systematic racism that is now symbolized by the George Floyd murder.

That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. — Gnomon

I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication.

Moral Progress — Gnomon

Pinker is definitely an optimist. Still, the claim that evolution is moving in a positive direction remains unjustified.

Destruction of unrelated storefronts, including ones owned by people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves, or especially (in that video posted earlier) some homeless guy's mattress, is not justified. — Pfhorrest

You evaluate that this is worse (an unjustified reaction) than the years of systematic racism and the incalculable suffering that it has caused now symbolized by the George Floyd murder?

Certain kinds of looting, sanctioned by the law and our morality, are not just tolerated but encouraged in our Glorious Republic. — Ciceronianus the White

Not to worry, it will trickle down to the lower classes like rain from heaven.

This means that you believe the rioting is unjustified or is worse than the original crime and the systematic racism that it stands for.
— praxis

The point of the post you're responding to is to argue that "unjustified" doesn't equal "worse that the original crime".

You can respond to harm with lesser harm and still be unjustified. It's not the amount of harm dispensed by whom that constitutes justice. — Pfhorrest

There are reactions and there is justice. Yes, they should not get confused. Maybe it would simplify things if you explain what you mean by the riots being an overreaction. It seems to be an evaluation of some kind.

I believe that people riot to demand justice, not to dispense it.

Justice isn't arithmetic like that. — Pfhorrest

You're the one claiming an "overreaction." This means that you believe the rioting is unjustified or is worse than the original crime and the systematic racism that it stands for. You can see how others might disagree, yes?

Everyone agrees the original crime was wrong, so there's nothing more to say about that. — Pfhorrest

Unfortunately, this is not true. It may be true for anyone who reads this topic but it's definitely not true everywhere. Also, claiming an "overreaction" means that you evaluate the riots to be worse than the original crime and everything it stands for. Many would see that as outrageous.

try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism
— praxis
That correlation wasn't my idea. — Gnomon

Whatever, it was just a suggestion that would help to avoid misunderstandings when you say things like 'metaphysics was banished from philosophical discourse'.

Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. — Gnomon

Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? Perhaps evolution took a very bad turn at some point and the earth will shortly end up a radioactive wasteland, or die a much slower death because of us. You're not a climate change denier, I trust.

Anyway , the important news is that Trump is going to get a second term on the back of leftist stupidity. — Chester

You sure, because it isn’t leftist stupidity that’s turning his own party against him.

Facebook makes good decisions?

“Coincidently this week, the Wall Street Journal’s peek at Facebook’s decision making over the past several years spotlighted a 2018 internal report acknowledging that “[o]ur algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness. … If left unchecked [it will show users] more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” — Brett

Lol, as if anyone needed this peek so see the obvious.

There's the moral issue of objectifying women.

I guess it depends at least in part on how good she is at virtual sex, as well as how good virtual sex is, for that matter.

It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse
— praxis
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread? — Gnomon

To help avoid potential confusion in the future, I suggest that you consider contrasting materialism with idealism and try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism but rather something more like theorizing about the nature of reality.

I understand this oddity now, for what that's worth.

Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?
— praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. — Gnomon

It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. In any case, you seem to believe that the enlightenment is inadequate in itself for this grand end and may even hinder its fruition.

You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
— praxis
Are you also a Global Warming denier?

I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out. — Gnomon

No, I'm not a global warming denier, nor do I deny that modernity has serious issues. The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. It's like you're mistaking mild symptoms for the disease.

I haven't been following your discussion with Possibility. However, having read several posts from both of you my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. I think that you could do what you're doing much better if you realized and fully embraced what it is that you're doing, rather than pretending to be doing something that you're not doing. I acknowledge that you may know perfectly well what you're trying to do but are simply not good at it.

The point about the economy is that a downturn was inevitable. It only takes the slightest prick to deflate a balloon. A wide range of things could do it. You can't blame 'leftists' or even the virus for spoiling the Ponzi scheme, though you might take partial blame yourself for playing up the lefty/righty bullshit rather than looking at the real problem.

...even the Norwegians are admitting that lock down may have been a bad idea because of the economic costs and the fact that they have built no herd immunity unlike Sweden. — Chester

Sweden isn’t even close to herd immunity. And what, if there were no lock-downs people would dutifully go to work and continue being good consumers, regardless of the risks?