But all the words you've listed, even if they're used to formulate questions, are redundant - we can always rephrase them in terms of the 7 questions

ok:)

Do you agree that there might be societies which need the occasional bloody governmental intervention? If not, what makes to say so? — Mongrel

There's not one system of government that hasn't failed - monarchy, aristocracy, communism, dictatorships and even democracy. By fail I mean the inability to keep its population happy and achieve some or all goals that define progress as we know it.

It appears that all societies, irrespective of their political systems, are treading the fine line between total chaos and total oppression.

So, I think we should put all political systems in the dock and not only dictatorships.

is necessity or possibility accounted for by what, when where, which, who, how, and why? — Bitter Crank

How does necessity and possibility bear on my question, which is simply ''what do you think is the 8th/7th/etc. type of question?"

Indeed, questions seem to depend on the evolution of our minds as I said in my OP.

Oh! I see. You mean the questions in the past and present tense are unique questions in themselves contra the present?

But I think all questions can be reconstructed in terms of the existing 7 available question types.

That's interesting.

It appears that ''could'' or ''would'' or maybe others too are different from the 7 questions in our bag.

However I think such questions can be rephrased in terms of the existing 7 questions e.g.

''Could you drink the soup?''

Can be rephrased as:

''What is the truth value of the proposition ''you drank the soup?''''

If someone choses to act well (in a moral sense) for no reason at all, then what would be the measure of her action according to which it isn't seen to be deviating from goodness into some gratuitous cruel or unjust behavior? If you chose to act well -- or to be good -- "on your own terms", as you say, then your own understanding of goodness, as distinguished from evil, provides your reason for acting. — Pierre-Normand

Perhaps I chose the wrong words. What I mean is that we can, from sunyata, realize that to do good we shouldn't have an ulterior motive e.g. attaining nirvana or salvation etc. Simply be good.

Actually, Buddhists have a name for that view. It's called 'total bullshit'. It's a very common affliction amongst decadent Westerners. You're just totally, like, you know, wallowing in your own ego. — Wayfarer

Then what is the right view?

I don't think you would.

Buddhists certainly recognize freedom of choice but they also undertake to observe the dharma. — Wayfarer

I think something unique to Buddhism is at the level of sunyata philosophy everything is acceptable - a no-holds-barred game. Enlightened people/bodhisattva's are known to dwell through the entire spectrum from extreme goodness to depraved cruelty.

It is when you realize that there's nothing you become truly free. What follows then is a choice you make on your own terms, devoid of external influences - to be good for no reason whatever. This is beautiful.

It's not an attitude, it is a feature of reality. — tom

My answer limits itself to the context of morality you, rightly, brought up.

Yes I'm looking for a new/novel/unique perspective to reality via a new type of question over and above the 7 I've listed above.

Till date everyone seems quite content with the 7 questions outlined above. However, isn't there any aspect of our present reality that demands a new line of questioning?

But śūnyatā doesn't actually mean 'nothing', it is a more subtle idea than that. — Wayfarer

How would you explain the concept of sunyata to a child?

To me sunyata (name itself derived from sunya which means zero?) means nothing - nothing lasts forever, there's neither good or bad, there's no nirvana nor samsara, etc. I think this is a nihilistic interpretation of the concept but I like it because from then on being good is a personal choice - it is complete freedom to choose one's path in life - and one assumes total responsibility for one's actions.

For a long time now humans have been trying to categorize experience into neat little boxes, crisply delineated domains. However, nature hasn't been very cooperative - throwing at us intractable vagueness and complexity.

The middle path is a result of our efforts to carve nature into high-resolution images and the inherent vagueness of nature.

God is, in essence, a hypothesis aimed at explaining the universe, its origins and workings.

If you walk into a room that is clean, neat and organized we automatically think of an organizer - the agency of order. The God hypothesis is exactly the same: the order in our universe (natural laws) justifies the likelihood of a law-giver.

Note, the God I'm referring to is nothing more than a creator. Only some time later did God acquired the 3 omnipowers and it all went downhill from that point.

Madhyamaka has a mathematical counterpart, to wit ZERO sitting exactly in the middle between positive and negative numbers. And doesn't that resonate with sunyata?

It is possible that there are an infinite number of realities with an infinite number of constraints on how many/what kind of simulations they run, and thus, you can't argue that it is more likely that there are more simulations than realities. — Javants

The Bostrom trilemma pre-empts these constraints - notice option 1 (the fraction of civilization having the means to simulate our reality is close to zero).

Animals don't have qualia, simulate them as much as you like — tom

This is the exact attitude an advanced civilization may have re us and our reality.

So you think a civilization advanced enough to perform a vast number of computer simulations containing us, our universe, and our qualia, will perform animal testing and play crappy C21 computer games? — tom

It's not an exaggeration to think that we may be to a sufficiently advanced civilization what animals are to us. We ignore the ability of animals to suffer and may be treated likewise by an advanced race of people.

There can't be scientific progress in the absence of certain values. In order to survive and become advanced, a civilization would require an advanced morality, culture, and probably aesthetics.

Would such people be willing to bring the suffering of humanity back into existence once? — tom

Well, to draw from our experience - animal experimentation - I don't think advanced civilizations will have any qualms about conducting tests that, perhaps, serve a greater good.

Also, look at the videogame market. It's mostly got to do with killing virtual people who have no legal standing whatsoever.

An advanced civilization would not simulate this reality because it would be utterly immoral to do so. — tom

That's a dim view of our reality. Do you think morality would have progressed in proportion to technology. Looking at the way things are technology is far far ahead of morality and there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case for all civilizations.

I considered that thought. The short answer is even if there were multiple realities, each would run more simulations than itself, ultimately, there would be more simulations than realities.

do anything they want — Marchesk

One of which could be running simulations

But if we're inside a simulation, on what basis do we assign such a probability? — Marchesk

There can be only 1 reality but there can be many simulations. So the probability of being in a simulation is greater.

Finally, it seems to rest on the assumption that the laws of physics are computable. — Marchesk

If the so-called laws can be mathematically expressed then it should be computable.

And one wonders how we must have faith in such an important issue while demanding proof of what is comparatively trivial.

No, evolution does not 'pit one's genetic composition against the environment' because individuals and 'people' are not the subjects of evolution. Populations of species, or more specifically, developmental systems are. 'Particular genetic defects' are only relevant to evolution once they begin to manifest at the level of speciation, otherwise they are totally evolutionarily irrelevant — StreetlightX

I don't understand. Isn't a population composed of individuals? The collective drama must be, invariably, played out at the level of the individual. Am I wrong?

Yes, because "evolutionary rejects" doesn't seem to mean anything. Evolution is simply "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". How does it make sense to pair the term "evolutionary" with the term "reject" ("inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty")?

At best you could perhaps use the term "evolutionary reject" to refer to any organism which doesn't contribute towards the evolutionary process, which would just be any organism that doesn't reproduce, but even that's a stretch. — Michael

Perhaps I haven't worded it as well as I would have liked.

I guess the point I'm making is that given genetic mutation is random, it is inevitable that some traits will be harmful to an organism's survival e.g. if a polar bear had a mutation that made it furless it would most certainly perish in its subzero temperature habitat. It is they that I'm referring to as evolutionary rejects.

No, that would be closer to natural selection, which is the commonly accepted means by which evolution occurs. — Michael

I don't see how one can sensibly differentiate between natural evolution and natural selection. Anyway the term natural selection is sufficient for me to get my point across which is that humans are interfering with natural selection by preventing deaths of people with genetically transmitted illnesses through the use of modern medicine. Isn't this interfering with the natural selection process - some of us should've died out long ago.

Would you say the same about animals building nests or sleeping in caves to avoid freezing to death?

And I don't understand how you can equate being susceptible to disease with having defective genes. — Michael

Animals building nests or sleeping in caves has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Suffice it to say that genetic defects are present in the population and they're being given the helping hand modern medicine.

This seems like saying that an airplane interferes with the natural process of gravity. — Michael

Please read my reply to StreetlightX

There are no such things as 'evolutionary rejects' - or rather, the only 'evolutionary rejects' are dead species. If you're alive, you're winning. That's the game. — StreetlightX

Of course there are (evolutionary rejects) - some unfortunate people are genetically prone to disease. Is it wrong to label them as evolutionary rejects. Of course I'm aware of the ethical aspect of such categorizations. However, in this case ethical ratings are irrelevant to genetic mutations.

The whole idea of 'evolutionary rejects' or that medicine and social innovations have somehow 'interfered' with some supposedly more 'natural' course of evolution is junk science and needs to be discarded at once. — StreetlightX

I think you're wrong there. Natural evolution pits one's genetic composition (its strengths and weaknesses) against the environment (from bacteria to lions). This isn't the case with humans. We use medicines to shore up our immune systems, thereby prolonging our lives - making it more likely to bear children who then are carriers of a particular genetic defect. How is this not interfering with natural evolution?

The way I'd put it is to consider what medical science has achieved so far. People carrying genes that are susceptible to disease (cancers, infections, etc.) and death have longer lifespans thanks to modern medicine. These evolutionary rejects are now living long enough to have children, thereby transmitting the defective gene. Isn't this a direct interference in the natural process of evolution?

Especially: is it actually a good thing that people can choose to do bad things? — Cuthbert

Is it actually a good thing that children who've crossed the 18 mark have to think for themselves?

In giving us free will (to do anything) god offers us an opportunity to mature as responsible members of our world. Some (most?) fail this simple task. However, hat doesn't diminish the value of free will.

Those emotions you mention are dispositions of physical bodies and physically felt; so I don't know what you mean by saying they are non-physical. — John

However, just as it is justified to take life as a one of a kind compared to inanimate matter, both being composed of the same stuff notwithstanding, it is also justified to contrast the physical body from the mental goings-on.

No causation as it generally understood consists in energetic physical interactions that are indifferent to any qualities we might impute to actions. — John

What you're saying is that causation is a physical thing. So, what of the non-physical? Do you think the qualities of action are exempt from causation mechanics?

Bravery, love, hate, kindness are all non-physical and yet they cause physical manifestations such as saving someone from a fire, gift-giving, assault, etc.

Karma is not causation as it is ordinarily understood. — John

I understand Karma as thoughts and actions causing circumstances that befit the nature of these thoughts and actions. Isn't this a natural extension of causality as we know it.

You have a different take on Karma. What is it?

The claim is not that human actions are uncaused. — John

Then why?

Sure, it's just that it tells against the theory of Karma is — John

The problem is that it is very commonly observed that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. — John

Everybody has a past. The good were once bad and the bad were once good. The game is still on for Karma.

I find Karma quite sensible. For me it follows quite naturally just as laughter follows a good joke. Search all you can and you'll never find an uncaused cause. Is this the principle of sufficient reason?? Therefore it seems very reasonable to assume causation applies to human thought and action just as it applies to ALL things in the universe.

I just don't see how that God can be only good, when there is evil and suffering in existence. A God who was both good and evil makes a lot more sense. Or a god indifferent to morality. An amoral being. A being for whom empathy and justice is a foreign concept. My very limited understanding of Hinduism is that God is beyond good and evil.

But a perfectly good God with omni-powers is in direct contradiction with existence. — Marchesk

Perhaps there's method in god's madness.

Perhaps we mistake justice for evil.

As you can see, defending god means doing some nifty mental gymnastics and those who do it aren't showing any signs of fatigue.

Do they need one another, are they intertwined that deeply? — River

We need to number pages of philosophical books.

Well, if the books I read are to be believed, superstition is fallacious thinking specific to causal reasoning. A ''lucky'' shirt, charm, etc. that causes safety, victory, recovery from an illness, etc.

As Wosret it is mistakenly thinking correlation is causation. I think the specific causal fallacy committed is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

However, the underlying assumption in pronouncing such thinking as fallacious is that we've got it right - as in our present scientific knowledge is true. That may be questioned by the astute or foolish - which depends on one's point of view.

When you said ''travelling via radio waves'' I thought aliens were encoding their consciousness in electromanetic waves and travelling as radiowaves.:D