Thanks for your wisdoms, friend!

ありがとうございました。

See, saying or thinking "I am a body" and "I have a body" at the same time, creates not only a conflict but also a circularity. — Alkis Piskas

Interesting view.

If we have a circularity, we must start in a basic point then. I only can guess that the basic starting point is the existence itself which is mixed with subject and properties.

Yes, that is a possibility. Well, since you brought this up, you must also find out how! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

It is a complex task, indeed :sweat: I would need to get more knowledge on metaphysics!

:up:

Is this sort of what you meant? — Benj96

Exactly.

Is a tree aware? Not like a human is, for sure. Does that mean it definitely isn't aware? I'm not so sure. How would one prove this? In essence such a question requires us to definitively define what consciousness actually is. And thus what is capable of possessing it. — Benj96

:up:

That's the main point or cause of the debate, I guess... and it seems so interesting because I don't how can we argue using the philosophical schools: metaphysics or philosophy of language? :chin:

Interesting point of view.
Despite the fact that Federal Reserve or CCP are evil institutions and probably they are not specially the ones who should speak about economical ethics, I personally think that cryptos still lack of security, transparency and effectiveness.
We don't know what the future holds and maybe the tables can be turned. Nevertheless, we should be cautious in terms of investing big money in cryptocurrencies.

So, if we say that objects do have awareness, that awareness would be something totally different from what we know and can define. That is, what we know as "awareness" and its definition would be false. — Alkis Piskas

Thanks because I also want to make the same argument but it is hard to me find the exact words to express it. :sweat:
What I want to argue here is the fact that, if objects have awareness, it could be so different and far away of what we consider "awareness" in our vocabulary.

I think it does exist (isn't metaphysical but physical), but only because we exist and it makes sense as a physical existent to us. The proof of a table is in its use as a table. The function proves its definition. — Benj96

Yes, I am agree they exist but what I deny is the notion of "table" or whatever new existents. We create those because our knowledge is ready to always go beyond. This is even thanks to metaphysics. We want to go more away than our limits.
We build a car. A car itself doesn't have awareness. We are aware that such object is called as a "car" because our vocabulary gives it such word. But all the elements of the car can exist with or without the car. I mean, the oil used to start up the car or the rubber used in the wheels to control the car, will always exist "there" not depending if we use them in a car. Thus, those elements weren't born to be used in a car. We, due to our awareness and sense of reality, use them in personal or professional proposes.

Some rocks are tables, not all rocks are tables, Therefore could not all tables be rocks? What else has tableness? — Benj96

Interesting.

If some or all rocks are tables depends on the management of working. We can apply the nature of "rock" to everything: tables, chairs, bathroom, etc... if a rock has tableness is thanks to us. A rock does exist in the environment and it will continue to conserve the property of "rock" during the process of transforming it in a table. During this process, a rock is not aware that it has been transformed metaphysically.
The concept of "table" is only a human thing. I mean, it is not an element of the environment. We are capable of manage and transforming stuff and then we apply different names or labels.
But the concept of tableness in only in our awareness and doesn't exist outside of us.

What else has tableness?

Nothing. Tableness doesn’t exist metaphysically. A block of wood transforms in a table but it is still a block of wood. Table is just in our vocabulary.

Buffett and Munger's predictions about Bitcoin that seem more true = Doubts on cryptocurrency.

Buffet: "If you were to say ... for a 1% share of all the farmland in America, pay our group $25 billion, I'd write you a check this afternoon," Buffett said. "[For] $25 billion I now own 1% of the farmland. [If you offer me 1% of all the housing in the country and you want another $25 billion, I'll write you a check, it's very simple. Now Well, if you told me you own all the bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn't take it because what would I do with it? I would have to sell it back to you one way or another. It's not going to do anything. The apartments will produce rent and the farms will produce food,"
Assets, to have value, have to contribute something to someone. And there is only one currency accepted.

Munger: "In my life, I try to avoid things that are stupid and evil and make me look bad compared to someone else, and bitcoin does all three," [Munger said.] "First, it's stupid because it's likely to go to zero. It's evil because it undermines the Federal Reserve System... and third, it makes us look foolish compared to China's communist leader. He was smart enough enough to ban bitcoin in China."

So, if we accept this impossiblility, then the concept of awareness has no meaning at all. Awareness simply doesn't exist as a state or faculty. Which is of course false. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I am a bit lost on the final phrase of your argument. What is false at all? I see that you want to explain that awareness is not faculty or state and then, awareness shall not have logic itself.
But the last phrase makes me thinking for one hour straight :sweat:

I don't what is false: awareness, the object's awareness or the tables themselves! Or... is it everything false and nothing is true at all? :scream:

Actually, the Catalonia-Spain conflict resides on level 1197 of my things-to-worry-about queue, just above the future of Nursultan Nazarbayev, deposed boss of Kazakstan. — BC

:rofl: :up:

Furthermore, if a table did exist, but no one ever saw or used it, would we naturally conclude it doesn't exist? In this case it does, regardless. We just cannot appreciate its form or function therefore for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. — Benj96

:up:

Is a table natural or is it a product of human consciousness? — Benj96

Another good question. First of all, the word "table" is a term created by human vocabulary. Our knowledge and vocabulary describe table as: a flat surface, usually supported by four legs, used for putting things on.
So, at first glance, it looks like the existence of a table depends on our consciousnesses because we have elaborated the concept and give it a name.

Does the table exists naturally? Probably, but with a different name and meaning.

How can an object have awareness? — Alkis Piskas

It is a good question, indeed.

For me, it is very complex to answer. Since the moment that "awareness" is a humanistic concept, I doubt if an object is concious about itself. For example: we are aware about the existence of the tables of our houses. But this thinking doesn't exist empirically outside of us. I mean: our thinking of "the tables does exist" will not affect to the existence of the tables at all. They are not aware about anything. If they "exist" is because we give them a meaningful sense.

In real life, does it play out like this? Who decides? I'm talking of course about business, particularly big business. — Mikie

Yes, I know some examples in real life. When you want to start up a business, you need to distribute everything in proportions. According to the law, presumably each participant owns the same part or proportion. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule and it could exist the scenario where a participant holds more proportion than the rest.
But we have a dilemma here. If we let one participant to hold 51 % of the overall, he/she could do or manage whatever without the consideration of the rest of the members. To avoid this situation of abuse, the law offers some rules.

I. Acts that necessarily need 3/4 of the votes of the participants. You will need a lot of votes, doesn't matter all the proportion you hold. For example: removing an administrator due to his unfair administration.
II. Acts who need absolute wholesale. For example: Assign credits or invest in the stock market.

Thanks to the voting system and limiting the proportions among the members, we would have a democratic membership or entrepreneur.

For example:

Hmm. A voting system within a company, you mean? — Mikie

Exactly. They owners vote in a General Meeting

You are right, those have dead for social causes, but "martyr" is a word that is interpreted in a religious way.

For example: Martyrs (Shaheed) And Their Status In Islam. Ibn Taymiyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “These are the four degrees of Allah’s slaves: the best of them are the Prophets, then the Siddeeqs, then the martyrs, then the righteous.” [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (2/223)]

Look, this is interesting: "The words of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) are that “the most dignified way to die is to be martyred" Martyrdom in Islam

Nobody no longer cares about Catalonia and Spain anyway... hopefully, they will not ever remind about the stupid conflict of 2017.

:up:

Ukraine isn't going back to Moscow and Catalonia isn't leaving Madrid. — BC

Catalonian issue is more complex than press and media show. It is even a subject of a separate thread, but please do not waste your precious time in something worthless as Catalonia-Spain conflict. It is an endless political conflict that we the Spaniards are living during centuries. They do not have a solution and we either have.
To be honest, I think the only way to understand this, you need to be Spanish and living here between Barcelona and Madrid.

Buenos días.

THERE ARE INFINITE NEW GODS — Bug Biro

Look, like in Ancient Greek mythology or Ancient Egypt empire.

How is individuality expressed? — Shawn

Not voting in political election and not caring about what is going on around him. An individual person is not part of the society. I think it isn't depends on "counter-culture". This is just a different generation in a distinctive era. Back then, there were also individualism.
If you look to Asia, you will see a lot of individualism towards politics and international issues.

The concept of martyr cannot be applied to Socrates because he was a philosopher not a Christian or Islamic who died in pursue of faith.
According to Cambridge dictionary, martyr is defined as: a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it
mártir; a Christian/Islamic/religious martyr.

Socrates was a victim of an ignorant system. Quite the opposite of being a "martyr"

If it's not equally distributed, who should get more -- and based on what criteria? — Mikie

It could be equally distributed if all participants did exactly the same contribution. 100 persons, then 1 % of effort of each contributor.
So, my criteria is based on the contribution and effectiveness of the participants. If they agreed of being equal parts, it is fine. But if someone does or contributes more than the rest I think it is justified to give to such participant more proportion of the pie than the rest.

If so, how much more? Should 60% of the pie go to this individual or group of individuals -- say 10 people? Or should it be more like 30%? What about 90%? — Mikie

I think it should not be more than 49,99 %. Why? Because otherwise would let the community to tear apart due to the big differences of proportions among them. If someone contributes more than 50,00 % we are not in a community at all... so they will end up dissolving themselves due to lack of effectiveness. Or the individual with huge percentage could be abusive to others, etc...

(3) Who decides (1) and (2)? — Mikie

The participants in a voting system. 3/4 of the votes could be useful to reach the distribution of proportions among the members.

Such politicians are a product of culture. We lack leadership and fidelity towards others — Benkei

I couldn't have said it better.

one of the main problems is our educational system. We don't have the culture of group and community. If Japanese people were able to recover from TWO nuclear bomb attacks is due to their millennial culture. They quickly thought that they only way to promote themselves was act collectively. Now: they are a country to consider of without any doubt.

I wish we copy more aspects of japanese culture rather than stupid "survival" or "entrepreneurs" savage capitalism prism...

@Benkei
In the other hand, please let me show you a good example of efficient politics.

Naoto Kan was the PM of Japan when Fukushima nuclear disaster took place. Kan was always been a politician focused in the ending of Japanese nuclear power. After the disaster, his reputation had decreased a lot. Nonetheless, before his resignation (just the act of resign is very honourable) he approved two important laws in japanese parliament to help the people recover from this disgrace. After the resignation, he said sorry to japanese citizens for not reaching the end of nuclear power.
He told a parliamentary investigation in 2012 that the nuclear industry had "shown no remorse" for the disaster, and was trying to push Japan back to nuclear power.

This man is a good example of a politician: honesty and efficiency for the people. Naoto Kan.
(I am even nearly in tears while writing this)

It is a big issue on what governments should do and a big dilemma about what we (the voters) are looking for when we go to vote. Is it easy rule a country? No, it isn't. Probably, I wouldn't know what to do if I were a PM but at least being the more efficient, possibly.
Every government has corruption. It is something wrong have to accept. I don't know how to explain it but when politicians reach the power they get corrupt.
But, one of the paradoxes here, is the fact that Spain when was ruled by a very corrupt political party, our economy was between 10th and 7th worldwide and the salaries were ok. The current government kicked out the previous one just for being corrupt not in terms of efficiency. This is why there are some Spaniards who have nostalgia about the previous prime minister. So it is interesting, there are people who rather have corrupt politicians than useless ones.

"I wish I could have skipped college."
~Saul Kripke 1940-2022 — 180 Proof

Sublime! :100:

全く間違っています。。。(mattaku machigatsu te iya masu) = you are wrong!

But another reason is that not everyone in the Western world is a selfish rat, and governments and organisations in democratic nations care about public opinion. — SophistiCat

I am agree in this point. Nevertheless… those persons are the minority. In most of the cases we would see that each state or organization would act selfishly.
But yes, I follow your point and view. We should estimate those whose interests are not trickster.

I remember that both France and the UK declared war on Germany. — ssu

I mean afterwards. When WWII ended. Nobody cared about Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc...

France and UK declared the war, yes. But we should recall some facts: the British royal family's connection with Nazis (The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathetic to Nazi Germany)
The resistance of Charles de Gaulle fighting against the Nazis, while France controlled (and continued to control...) all African possessions.

What I want to mean: hypocrisy. The states and organisations only act when they see it is worthy for their own interests and I don't understand why the Western world is caring that much about Ukraine. I feel I am not seeing something.

I think you're spending too much time on Instagram — Benkei

I don't have instagram...

Rich is being able to provide comfortably for a family. It's not having a second home, a yacht and a bugatti. — Benkei

I am agree, when did I considered rich was the ability to buy a yacht?

Again, it is not about the notion about what is being rich but efficiency with public spending. For example:

Mark Rutte was sceptic about European Funds (also called as "Next Generation") aimed at Spanish crisis. He had a lot of doubts regarding our public expenditure and ability to control the waste of money by corrupt politicians. I was completely agree with your PM. Probably in Netherlands the economy is built and controlled with more sense but here is the opposite.
So, taxing the middle class without a serious control would only make the disappearance of it.

You put a good example: "Rich is being able to
provide comfort in a family". Exactly, but here our government is not doing so. Something is going wrong when we pay a lot of taxes but the public administration is not capable of promoting houses for families or increasing the salaries of the workers for being able to raise kids...

So bit confused on what you are trying to say here... — ssu

I didn't used Poland as an example. It was @SophistiCat.
Anyway, what I meant is that Poland (in WWII crisis) didn't act struggling Western side or Soviet block just for national issues. Let's be honest, nobody cared about Polish destruction and chaos. After WWII, Poland began to live a very complex situation and USA administration or the Bank of England didn't support them with tons and tons of money.
Poland did not regain its independence after World War Two. After the great conflict, the Soviet Union, which had first attacked Poland as Hitler’s ally in 1939, seized the entire Polish territory, with the open connivance of the triumphant Allies: A post-war war. The years of 1944–1963 in Poland

We've done caring about Africa, did you not see Band Aid? — Isaac

Oh please you made me laugh :lol: after colonial era we left those countries killing themselves for tribe issues. Nobody took part on Rwanda civil war, Egyptian Coup de État; Republic of Congo bloody wars; Liberia conflicts with diamonds, and a big etc... the media simply doesn't care because they are "far away" from us. In those African countries only went some humanitarians without the back up of their countries.
Saying that Rwanda had the same support as Ukraine in nowadays is denying the reality.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? — Manuel

I couldn't have said it better.

Sorry my ignorance but I only see two big problems in this issue: inflation and a huge waste of taxes on defence spending just because a country (nobody ever cared about) is childish to not accept his reality and acts selfish with European Union.

Wow, I wish the world cares about Syria, Afghanistan or Africa as much as with Ukraine. Everything would be so damn different.

It depends on life costs. Japan is a very expensive country and Tokyo has a lot of costs related to transport, real state, rents, etc... so no. 200K per year as a Japanese worker is middle class.

It is true that in Spanish perspective is different. Sadly, our sh*t ass tourism economy says that you are rich if you earn more than 65.000 € per year. We are clearly poorer than Japan. They are the 3rd economy of the world and we are 16th.
A filthy pit of tourism and restaurants.

But hey this is not about richness but efficiency: while Japanese government offers 7.500 euros to help families live outside Tokyo, here our reckless government only offers 200€ to pay a rent. Our politicians don't care about us and they waste the public spending in stupid stuff.

Poster

Warning!: the building is under construction. All electronic materials are not operative.

I have read while I got stuck in the elevator...

Also, I met your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grand daughter in Osaka, Japan. — Agent Smith

What?

Good morning :flower:

Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them. — Joshs

Hats off :up: :100:

I remember you also took part in his thread about recognising greatness. I think it is an original topic and his arguments were well defended.

Or probably is just my own view because I have personality disorder :smile: :wink: