Yes. The animal does not kill for fun.

We do not know how complex this nature is. It may very well be that this nature (and life) is very primitive. And there is a much more complex life.
Simply put, we rolled a die with the number 1 and think this is super unique and the maximum win. And this is not a fact. :)

The student cannot rate the professor. And if he can, then he himself is a professor.
We must be more perfect than the god we think / feel.

How can we prove that a triangle drawn by such a creature is ideal? Apparently, we ourselves must be perfect in order to appreciate this. After all, an evaluating instrument is always more accurate than what it evaluates. And if we have estimated and considered that the triangle is perfect, then we ourselves are God.

Maybe I don't quite understand Kant's argument as Popper presents it, but: isn't that as fallacious as arguing that the series of negative integers cannot be infinite because otherwise it could never reach -3? — Amalac

How do you imagine negative time for yourself? Kant spoke of time, which clearly has a beginning and is always positive. And the past for us is also a positive time. Relative to zero

Why on earth should we want them to go away? — Benj96

They may decide that the world does not need you. An excess element that only consumes and does not provide anything useful.
And this is at least insulting.

Yes. Kill the pig! Cut her throat! Spill her blood! — T Clark

About. The problem is that an omniscient person will interfere with the usual way of life. Especially to the kings.

They would kill.

Once I'm able to do this, I'll let you know. — charles ferraro

Your experience is simply your experience.
Let's say I dreamed of a neighbor with whom we talked in a dream. And I asked him a question.
A few days later we met, and he answered me - in real life. Do you believe me?

By definition, a dreamed person can neither think, nor exist independent of the dreamer. — charles ferraro

Can you prove it reliably?

Maybe cybernetics is just a woman who will give birth to a Übermensch, as Nietzsche wanted. Nietzsche did not speak of the "meat" Übermensch.

Okay, I'll drink from that bottle ... Btw, welcome to TPF. — 180 Proof

TPF is "Transaction Processing Facility" or "Terrestrial Planet Finder"? :)

I am sorry if I appear to be referring to specific ideas of particular writers and this is just because they seem to have thought so much about the subconscious or systems. I see your point about a database and how we could be like databases. However, while the model of information may have some usefulness for considering our processing, but it is a picture based on our particular perspective, whereas people who lived in different historical eras may have thought in an animistic way, or in connection with the planets and stars as a basic construct for viewing and explaining the content of thoughts. — Jack Cummins

Animism is wonderful. The trouble is, this is unprovable. I'm talking about the "souls" of people, animals and different "things".
Although they (these people) are united by the fact that they had their own database based on their own collected data. Which has been going all my life and sorted into a kind of conviction.
If we call a "microorganism" an "evil spirit", this will not fundamentally change anything. And the replacement of the "demon" with the "green UFO man" too.

The area of the subconscious is a large one indeed because it does involve many interpretive viewpoints. I have come across psychology texts which see the subconscious as more of a processing of data and I think that it is possible that you see it in this way because you mentioned data and systems.

However, we do have to bear in mind that ideas about the subconscious also emerge within psychoanalytic thought. In particular, both Freud and Jung speak of it, and their approaches are extremely different from one another. I am aware that many may see the ideas of both these thinkers as being outdated and not evidence based to be worthy of serious debate. However, they do provide frameworks.I think that both writers would probably see nightmares as material which is repressed and surface.

One aspect which I am aware of is how I often notice that I begin having nightmares, or even hypopompic and hypnagogic experience when I am in stressful life situations and I know many other people who have found this too. This probably points to chemicals which are triggered by stress.

Also, I think that the systems approach of Fritjof Capra is very useful and that thoughts, including those which are consciousness and those emerging from the subconscious can be viewed as arising within us as living systems, and as parts of larger systems. — Jack Cummins

Can you speak in your own words? Without Freud, Jung And Capra. In their time, there was no "big data", a computer, and even the "Chinese room" was just an inference. And now it is a reality.
You will notice that any thought you have may just be a fuzzy sample from a large database. Well, you (and I) have no new thoughts. Our "new thoughts" are just a "kaleidoscope" of our own old thoughts with data correction in accordance with new requests.
You simply cannot believe that your "thoughts" can simply be states of some kind of "state machine." Automatic machine. And which you consider unique and impossible to generate by a machine.
By the way, I can also be a machine, talking to a machine now.

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. We are most aware of the subconscious in our experiences of dreams and the role of the 'I' consciousness here is interesting. Certainly, in my own dreams I am still consciously related to my own waking identity. But, it seems to me that we retain the same witness consciousness in most dreams, even if events of dreams are fragmented in unusual ways. — Jack Cummins

I separate "consciousness" and "subconsciousness", if only because from time to time we see nightmares. And we are afraid of them. Most likely they are seen by "consciousness". And the "subconscious" shows. Otherwise, "consciousness" would not have been frightened. :) It turns out that there are two of them.
And we "think" only about what is in our "conscious world".
This is why I am assuming that our "thinking" is simply the "processor" of our large database. Which we have accumulated over our life path.

Or maybe thoughts are just the result of one subroutine being read by another subroutine? We call these procedures "consciousness" and "subconsciousness". And all together - this is just a processor for one large database.

So what makes this world "free"? That people can escape by suicide? What makes forcing people into such a situation moral? I didn't quite get that from your response. — schopenhauer1

Compulsion? I was only talking about free will. Freedom of choice. And about the inadmissibility of condemnation for the choice of a free person.
After all, it is only in religion that they first talk about "free will" and then punish for "wrong choices." And this is no longer freedom.

Is not putting people into this forced circumstance itself suspect or immoral? — schopenhauer1

What circumstance? If creatures voluntarily leave the world you created, then most likely you are a bad creator. After all, you created a free world, and not just a theater for your own entertainment. Or theater?

So that is all that matters here? So if I put someone in any X circumstance, as long as they have free choice, putting them in that circumstance itself makes no moral difference? That will lead to some weird conclusions... — schopenhauer1

But you yourself created the conditions for the game. If the very creation of such a world is moral, then the creation of a pill for committing suicide in this world is also moral. The only thing the creator should do in this situation is not to punish the creature for the choice. Otherwise it will be immoral in itself.

It is quite moral. Because he gives free will and does not punish any choice.

1. There is something like a person.

2. No matter how much I learn about the subjective world, I will never know what it means to be human.

3. Therefore, in fact there is something that is outside the subjective world.

All this means that the other subject may not be like you, although he will be absolutely similar.
By the way, what is the "objective world"?

New space is being added everywhere. — Pfhorrest

Is there space inside objects like planets? If so, do we see an increase in the size of the planets over time?

You just believe that reality is real. We are used to it. Although, it can only be a dream. Remember the philosopher ...

Yes. Any "social scores" - there are 100 of them? You can have a child. Not? Better to sterilize right away, because you still won't be able to earn 100 points. :)
Bad, very bad.

We only know the direction from the "point of the big bang" and the approximate time of its beginning. But we do not know (are not sure) that this happened from the "point". Those. we do not know the initial radius of the source. It could very well be (I'm fantasizing) a mega-large neutron star or something.
The rest is quite a reasonable theory.

Feeling of moral superiority: "I saved the planet."

"Now" for a real person is already in the past. The transmission of a nerve impulse does not occur instantaneously.

An infinite past implies an infinite future, seeing as something existing with an infinite past cannot cease to exist. It would contradict the implication of an infinite past. — Tombob

Where did you get the idea that spacetime is infinite? What are you measuring? By the way, where will the "Planck constant" go?

He said is just “trivial” but if you count your fingers, stickers and luxury yachts you will sew why we end up in 4 because is basic reasoning — javi2541997

2 threads + 2 threads = 4 threads, exactly? Not 1 river?

2 + 2 = 4, this is if quantity does not turn into quality. A glass of sugar + a glass of boiling water = 1.5 cups of syrup, not two. :)

Just because something happened before, even with infinite size, doesn't mean it will happen in the future. Between 0 and -1 is the same infinity as between 0 and 1 - the only difference is in which direction we look at it. :)
- SimpleUser

I am not following your reasoning here. Please clarify! — Tombob

You are simply mixing mathematics (abstraction) and physics (observable reality). We can tell how much time has passed since the beginning of our observable universe (between the "big bang" point and "now"). And this time is finite, not infinite. The reasoning given for the time "before the big bang" is just speculation. And, even more so, the assumption that "infinity in the past" implies "infinity in the future."

If everything originates from an infinite state: everything that has existed, exists and will exist has always existed. This leads to the universe being deterministic. — Томбоб

If something happened before, even with an infinite size, does not suggest that it will be in the future. Between 0 and -1 is the same infinity as between 0 and 1 - the only difference is in which direction we are considering it. :)

True, like I responded to another user the only way out of such a situation seems to be this: The man who wishes for everyone's desires not to be fulfilled actually is saying something like: It would feel so good if I could ruin everyone else's desires. — Амалак

Then all desires can be considered the same, seeming. Otherwise, it turns out that there are "right" desires and "false"?

If all desires are fulfilled, then soon a person will appear who wants all desires of everyone NOT to be fulfilled. And the great recursion will come. :)