I'm not sure. We can delay these things in the expectation of future happiness but just as the happiness from sense pleasure doesn't last, I think the same goes for less obvious things. — Nichiren-123

In many circumstances, people do selfless things with no expectation of reward or happiness. Indeed, in many situations, they do selfless things with the expectation of pain, suffering, and even death.

For instance you could spend long, hard periods studying for a qualification. (i.e delayed gratification and making sacrifice) but the 'high' from achieving your qualification will fade away as well, over time. — Nichiren-123

In this example, a person is not doing it to get an achievement high. You say yourself that they're "studying for a qualification."

I'd appreciate if you could put forward your exact view on the subject so we can compare and relate? — Nichiren-123

I need to understand the questions in the OP before I can answer them.

It was a neo-nazi and white supremacist rally organized by Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler. To say that there are good people on both sides is to say that these are good people.



Trump is unable to condemn part of his base. It’s just that simple, I’m afraid.

Really weird. I wonder how a Preformationist would explain evolution.

The problem is that, as we've both agreed on, is that sense-pleasure is not sustainable. However, at the same time, it's what we've evolved to do. We've evolved to seek out pleasure at every opportunity. — Nichiren-123

Hold on a second, we haven't agreed on this. I wrote, "We simply didn't evolve to sit around and pleasure ourselves so it will necessarily be unfulfilling." We've evolved to do many things that are unsatisfying, at least in the immediate short-term. We've evolved to delay gratification and make sacrifices.

Will you acknowledge this?

I hope that doesn't mean that I'm paying for it somehow. It's the LA Times.

Finding lasting, stable well-being and fulfillment without relying on sense-pleasure sounds like a much more realistic thing to achieve... — Nichiren-123

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. A person may pursue sense pleasure or they can pursue well-being or a sense of fulfillment. They could pursue all of these things. I think we can agree that the exclusive pursuit of sense pleasure can be problematic because it's not "in accordance with our evolutionary make-up," as you say. We simply didn't evolve to sit around and pleasure ourselves so it will necessarily be unfulfilling.

Surfer fined $1,000 for ignoring coronavirus closure in Manhattan Beach

And that was for crappy waves. If there's a swell in the next few weeks at the peak of the virus and with more stringent isolation measures there's gonna be a lot more of this.

Can we escape the mechanisms for happiness we’ve evolved to have? — Nichiren-123

'Mechanisms for happiness' is an odd distinction and could probably use clarification. Is happiness sense pleasure? Is it a sense of well-being or fulfillment?

Or is energy better spent learning to live in accordance with our evolutionary make-up? Learning to be happy by following our nature? — Nichiren-123

Is there a choice?

... it would in fact be false to say that anything exists, absolutely, outside of any perceiving being. — finob

Isn't this self-contradictory? Facts, the duality of truth and fallaciousness, existents, inside/outside, etc., are all the concepts of a sentient being.

If the preferred result is moving out rather than paying rent, just start coughing a lot.

An advisory from county doctors yesterday. I think @Pfhorrest lives in the county too.

If we are able to sustainably reduce social contact by 60%-70% and improve testing and treatment, the aforementioned epidemiologic model [no social distancing --> 18k ventilators needed by day 58 and only 180 currently available] suggests we could improve from that worst-case scenario of 18,000 ventilators needed on day 58 to a much more manageable peak of 475 ventilators on day 170 of the outbreak. That extra time is critical for our hospitals to build ventilator capacity and allow for the development of novel treatments. Thousands of lives would be saved. The key is sustaining the recommended reduction in social contact for that prolonged period of time.

*Oops, wrong topic.

Tricksters are a wile breed. He'll be fine.

I feel like you are trolling me. :down: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The juggling act, as NOS puts it, is between human lives and the life of the economy. I would expect that someone who brands themself with phrases like "loving people" wouldn't be so quick to support juggling lives.

I don't see myself as making "promises" when using other's labels to label myself. I'm describing myself with a symbol that approximates my ideas - so that others will know where I'm coming from. — Harry Hindu

Why do they need to know where you’re coming from? But more to the point, what happens when you don’t behave in accord with the label? You’re labeled a fraud and are no longer considered part of the group. They say that during the vast majority of sapien existence that would have been a death sentence. That’s quite an incentive to be consistent.

Science, on the other hand, seems at first glance to be unique among mankind's activities. It is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment. If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. The rules are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth. — Harry Hindu

You’re arguing for utilitarianism?

It sounds simple, maybe too simple to be useful. For instance, institutional facts may arise out of collective intentions but are not our collective intentions shaped, at least in part, by institutional facts? An extreme example might be something like a death cult where the institutional reality overrides what might be considered the strongest natural impulses.

He said "good people on both sides" about the pro/anti statue protesters, and NOT about the neonazis. Very clearly. Which you would know if you actually read the transcript, instead of listening to the fake media lies. The fake media narrative is a total lie, and one of the most shameful ones. — Nobeernolife

So there was a group of protesters supporting the removal and a group against, and the neo-nazis just happened to be in the neighborhood attending a home decor tiki torch convention or something?

Government is an ultimate authority and very often even more so when there is no religion. — christian2017

So you accept without question whatever your government tells you?

I'm really not sure we can say that atheists don't subscribe to faith and not even in the sense that they are at all different from religionists. — christian2017

I agree that an atheist can be just as irrational as any theist, if that’s what you’re suggesting. And we do indeed all have shared fictions, some deeper and more influential than others. Religion tends to cut deep. I assume that’s because it offers structure, ultimate authority, and big promises.

Many would say when you die you don't feel or feel pain or happiness. — christian2017

But not necessarily atheists, who hold that a god or gods don’t exist. An atheist may subscribe to a metaphysics that in some way allows for a continuation of being after death, for instance. Maybe something like simulation theory, or Buddhism minus the gods.

How would you prove social critters don't have some irrational or fictional beliefs related to images considering they can't communicate with us. I'm not saying they have religion but they do have irrational or fictional beliefs. — christian2017

I'm sure social animals can be conditioned to have maladaptive responses to situations and in that way be considered irrational. And social animals can communicate with us. My dog and I communicate daily with body language and verbally. We don't philosophize about the existence of God together but our communication has the virtue of lacking all human bullshit, at least from his side.

At the very least you could say they aren't the best at survival nor can they predict certain things as well as we can. — christian2017

Just looking at dogs, it's estimated that there are almost a billion in the world. There are 7.8 billion sapiens. So canine survival ain't too shabby by comparison. In some ways, dogs are better predictors than we are because their minds aren't preoccupied with ruminating about human bullshit. Dogs pick up on subtle patterns that most people would miss and they respond instantly to those patterns.

I think you mean abstract thought or mental simulation rather than prediction.

As to "where this is going": we are all supposed to keep an open mind or rational people tend to push people off of sites like this. — christian2017

It is a philosophy forum, after all.

Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife. — christian2017

The repercussion is commonly believed to be, in a word, nihilism.

Not sure what you mean by "atheism argues for an eternity without feeling."

Much more practical, though you run the risk of the elderly person not fully grasping the gravity of the situation, in which case things could quickly get awkward.

"Would you like help with your groceries?"

"What, dear?"

"I said, would you like help with your groceries?"

"I'm sorry, you'll have to speak louder."

"WOULD YOU LIKE HELP."

"No thank you, my doctor said to stay away from kelp."

"Uh, okay... HAVE A NICE DAY"

What would you do? Avoid her? — NOS4A2

Avoid, unless I had a high degree of confidence that I wasn't a carrier (I don't currently), or if I wore a mask and gloves that I had a high degree of confidence were uncontaminated. We are talking about someone who is old and feeble, right?

Our world was in need of a crisis because the unexpected consequences are bringing us together and that is huge. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Climate change, mass extinctions, pollution... Oh, sorry, I got hysterical there for a moment.

Carrying someone’s groceries does not entail me violating any “rule”. — NOS4A2

It entails getting within transmittable range of a vulnerable person, in your case, unless you two coordinated otherwise. It also entails direct contact with things that she will be in direct contact with, unless you were equipped with protective gear.

What would you have done had she accepted your irresponsible offer?

How many people are you willing to support sacrificing?

Where I live the cases are rare-ish. So I don't think we should completely throw our humanity to the wind quite yet. Like you said, steps can be taken to mitigate the risk, and I think that's better than avoiding susceptible populations entirely. — NOS4A2

As is your habit, you contradict yourself. Humans have the capacity to feel AND think, and we have the gift of foresight, at least some of us, so it is most human to express our foresight and take precautions for the benefit of others.

Institutional facts arise out of collective intentionality. With this understanding, how would you say something like religion develops?

I was half kidding. The fact is that the dynamics of good-samaritanship have changed. If you want to help the elderly you need to protect them from yourself by wearing gloves, a facemask, etc. You could potentially kill with the best intentions, but poor foresight.

Yesterday I saw what to me was an appalling sight. An elderly woman was walking in the rain with groceries, while able-bodied people were crossing the street to avoid her. This seemed absurd to me. So I did the unthinkable and asked if she needed a hand. She didn't need my help, apparently, but the smile was enough for me to know that my acknowledgment at least meant something to her. — NOS4A2

If you were close enough perhaps you transferred the virus to her, and her being elderly essentially killed her. Good going, a-hole.

It seems to me that art, ethics, rights and political ideology also fall into that same category of "fictions that help bind groups in cooperative behaviors." What about science? Is science a shared fiction? Has science proved to be an even better survival strategy? If so, then maybe "extremely successful" isn't a proper characteristic of the outcome of shared fictions. How do we know that we wouldn't have been more successful if our ancestors adopted science instead of religion? — Harry Hindu

I'm thinking that the 'glue' of a shared fiction is in the perceived value or 'promise', if you will, that it contains. Things like money and religion are very different things, yet they function to provide cooperative behavior across the globe, and I imagine the common denominator is value, or rather, the promise of value. For instance, you identify as a Libertarian and by identifying as such you are in a sense making a promise that you will act in particular ways. If a group of sapiens all agree to act in a particular way, to cooperate across the globe, that is obviously very powerful.

Scientists across the globe cooperate using the same method and this is clearly powerful for any number of applications, but any particular application? Philosophers across the globe cooperate and exchange ideas, but do they agree on any particular philosophy?

If someone identifies as a scientist or philosopher what can I expect from them? I can expect that they value rationality and that's good because I also value rationality. Still, they may have all sorts of beliefs and values that I don't share. The designation of scientist or philosopher is not specific enough to have much meaning for me. Currently, if someone identified as a stoic I'd be very interested in being their friend.

:lol:

I’ve read Sapiens.

1) I suppose that’s true.

2) Prolonged anxiety may have a tendency to lead to clinical depression. Sapiens may be unique in our capacity for existential angst.

3) Social critters encourage 'good behavior' without utilizing religion, as did sapiens prior to developing it. 'Advanced' societies utilize religion and other shared fictions.

Not sure where this is going or what the point may be. The gist of Sapiens is the theory that shared fictions like religion or money help to bind groups in cooperative behavior and that this has proven to be an extremely successful survival strategy.

Meditation may help someone deal with pain (likewise hypnosis) but it is not a permanent state to function in. — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps arguably, the deactivation of the DMN (neuological Buddhist ideal) can result in more efficient functioning, particularly of an overactive DMN.

The takeaway might be that the pursuit of well-being might possibly be better than the pursuit we are trained for by missionaries or whoever.

Would it be better in a hunter gatherer society for everyone to sit around and bullshit all day instead of hunting and gathering, sure, until dinner time. Same thing for our society, just bigger scale. — Hanover

FYI: everyone in hunter gather societies actually have a lot of time to sit around and bullshit. Far more than us fools on the capitalist hamster wheel.

It’s important to distinguish between the self as some separate ontological thing that endures despite changes, the self as a first-person perspective or general awareness, and the self as reflexive awareness (self-awareness). If you distinguish between these things all the problems go away. — Pfhorrest

Buddhists believe that discernment is an essential aspect of practice, however, that itself can’t resolve the problem of suffering (attachment to self or ignorance of our true nature).

So that is a list of the worst "lies" that you can think of? Thanks for making my point about the credibility of these lists. — Nobeernolife

Simply saying “not a lie” is, quite frankly, beyond idiotic. Those lies were cut and pasted from politifact.org and I could cut and paste the facts they list to support them, but why bother, facts are irrelevant to a Trump supporter. That’s the point you make.

Regarding hyperbole, disinformation is intentionally false or misleading information that is spread in a calculated way to deceive target audiences. An exaggeration occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. Trump’s lies target people like yourself and are strategic in nature. Only a fool can’t see that.

Right, a capitalists definition of well-being. What is that exactly?

Well-being is not self-sacrificial, nor is it apparently an incentive that is ever in place in a capitalist society.