It doesn't let me revise the poll question. I wanted to make it clearer. I don't think we can know anything objectively.

All of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective. How can I possibly know anything objectively?

Yes, all of my sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions, etc. are subjective. How can I possibly know anything objectively?

We can't know anything outside our subjective perceptions and understanding.

I agree.

It's written in their holy book. I don't agree with them. I think all religions are fiction made up by people.

Hinduism is more than 5,000 years old which makes it the oldest surviving religion on Earth. It has many Gods. Hindus believe that living things have immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma. The original Buddhism is atheistic.

Thank you.

:rofl:

I agree.

I live in the U.K. currently but I was born in Bangladesh. I have read the book "Brave New World" and I don't have the time to watch the movie but thank you for the recommendation. Governments are supposed to protect people but they don't always succeed.

It's possible I have misunderstood the Hindu concept of Maya which means illusion. I am not an expert on Hinduism. I only know what I have read about it.

In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, māyā, "appearance", is "the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real".

- quoting from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

That's interesting. Time will tell. Thank you for telling me about it.

I believed Santa Claus was real.
I believed people live forever.
I believed if people die, then they come back to life in a few days of rest, after seeing the same action movie actor being killed in a movie, then a few weeks later, he was back in another movie fighting the gangsters.
I believed that old folks are born old, young folks like me are born young, and it will be like that forever.
I believed that my parents might be God, because they could buy me nice things.
I believed that the world is the size of my town where I lived.
I believed that when I am asleep, the world disappears, and I am the centre of the universe.
... etc etc. — Corvus

Thank you very much for sharing your childhood illusions with us. I didn't have any of your illusions. I was kidnapped when I was four years and five months old. I have experienced all kinds of horrors that I am not going to give you the gory details of as I don't want to traumatise you.

According to Hinduism, the entire universe is an illusion. I am not convinced that Hinduism is true. I am an agnostic atheist materialist monist hard determinist.

You are right. I am not a professional philosopher. I am not even studying philosophy.

I see your point. The above tips on How to Live a Fulfilling Life is free for all so the author is not making any money from it. It's written anonymously so the author is not receiving fame for it either.

I am just going by what I have observed. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct. The world is full of omnivores, carnivores, herbivores, and parasites. Why aren't all living things autotrophs the way all plants (except for carnivorous plants) are? It would be even better if all living things were nonconsumers. Human history and our present are full of violence, murder, war, exploitation, slavery, genocide, rape, torture, robbery, theft, etc. I have been kidnapped, raped, beaten up and robbed. Six of my relatives were murdered in separate incidents. My best friend was also murdered. The criminals got away with the crimes. If hard determinism is true, the criminals are not even morally culpable. "Might is right. Adapt or die" is what I have seen from my earliest memories to the present. I hate all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. I wish we lived in a nice world where everyone is forever happy. I don't think it would be boring. If every living thing were all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful and owned an infinite number of universes each, how could we be bored?

The universe of Star Trek is a positive one but it is fiction. I try hard to keep my personal ecological footprint low. Are you talking about New Age spirituality?

Might is right. Adapt or die. This is how the real world works. I wish we lived in a nice world where every living thing is forever happy but we don't.

I didn't know things were so bad. What is the solution?

Please see https://thehumaneleague.org/article/environmental-benefits-of-veganism

I don't know the answer to your question. I agree that religions and political ideologies (e.g. communism, capitalism, socialism, etc.) are opinions.

I agree that we also go to war over resources e.g. land, oil, etc.

That too, happens.

We don't have the means to test the simulation hypothesis.

I agree with you. When I said

I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better

I was thinking of things such as religions and politics. We have murdered a lot of people over the last five thousand years over religions and politics and we are still at it. We need to end our violence before it ends us.

I agree with you.

I understand that you enjoy the taste of meat. Most people do. We evolved as omnivores. I am pleased that you see how going vegan would help the environment. It would also help people and the sentient organisms we consume.

I agree. The rich need to downgrade their high-ecological-impact lifestyle into a sustainable lifestyle. All humans going vegan would help.

I agree. This is one of the reasons I want all humans to go vegan. Going vegan would reduce our ecological impact.

Hypothetical talks are interesting even though they are not philosophical statements. I am a big fan of science fiction.

Ok, thank you.

I am talking hypothetically. We don't have any way to test the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I am not a physicist but I have read books about Quantum Mechanics.

A lot of people believe in either resurrection or reincarnation of souls. I am not convinced that souls exist and I am not convinced that resurrection or reincarnation happens but I could be wrong about these things.

No apology is needed for your delayed reply. I think it is extremely unlikely that we are living in a simulation. I agree that there is no logical, empirical or physical ground for this belief. I have never said that this is my belief. I have already said in other posts that it is an extremely unlikely possibility with one-in-infinity chance of being correct. What if there are an infinite number of universes? If so, the one-in-infinity possibilities would be real in at least one out of the infinite number of universes. If the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there could be an infinite number of universes. Unfortunately, we have no way to test this hypothesis.

I know quantum mechanics has macroscopic consequences. I prefer actual experiments to thought experiments as you get actual data from actual experiments instead of what you imagine the data is. Reality is often more complex and surprising than what we imagine it is.

Personally, I think this quantum randomness can provide a "refuge" for souls or spirits or whatever flavor of immaterial stuff you like. One could say that it is consciousness or souls or spirits or whatever that collapses wavestates, or that it at least has something to do with it. That would give "us" (if you define as some sort of immaterial soul) real agency in inacting physical change in the world. — khaled

That's an interesting idea. Do you have any evidence to support it? How would an immaterial soul or spirit interact with material objects such as atoms? How would an immaterial soul or spirit free us from determinants such as genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind — khaled

Thank you for the link. I read it. It seems to be speculations rather than evidence-based conclusions.

But if that is NOT the case, if it really the case that quantum processes are completely random, you'd have to believe in some sort of compatibalism to believe in free will. — khaled

What evidence do you have in support of compatibilism?

My question is, why do you require that we be COMPLETELY free to have ANY responsibility. — khaled

I don't know how free one needs to be to have any responsibility. How free am I? Could I have made different choices than the ones I made at the time of the choosing? I don't think so. I don't murder, kidnap, rape, torture, etc. It's not some towering moral achievement for me. I simply have no desire to murder, kidnap, rape, torture, etc. Even if these actions became legal from now on, I still wouldn't do these things. I think that if I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of people who have murdered, kidnapped, raped, tortured, etc. I would have done these things. I also think that if they had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences they would have refrained from doing these things and instead would be typing these words when and where I am typing these words. Do I freely choose not to murder, kidnap, rape, torture, etc? No. I simply have no desire to these things. I wouldn't do them even if they were legal and you offered to pay me trillions of dollars. I considered these actions to be morally wrong. I feel compelled to refrain from doing these things. I dont' freely choose not to. Let me give you another example. I don't like chocolate cakes and chocolate ice-creams. I don't like the way they taste. I don't choose this preference. It is just the way it is. I am no more responsible for refraining from murdering, kidnapping, raping, and torturing than I am responsible for not liking chocolate cakes and chocolate ice-creams.

Why would the choice of an omniscient and omnipotent being be free from determinants? Their choices would be from constraints but not free from determinants. They will still have determinants for their choices.

Let's say you are not quite omnipotent, you can only exert enough force to lift 10^9999999 tons. Quite the limit from pure omnipotence, but still extremely powerful. If you decide to kill someone now, would you still be responsible? I would say yes, DESPITE the fact that you have a constraint. Because I cannot see how this constraint would influence your decision on whether or not to kill someone at all, do you agree? — khaled

I think you have never understood the point I have been making in this thread. Our choices arise in the present continuous out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. So, whether someone experiences the desire to murder or not is not free from determinants. It's not about the kind of limitation you are talking about in your example. Whether an organism can lift a huge amount of weight has nothing to do with whether or not they have the desire to murder.

Let me give you another example. Eighteen years ago, I met two vegans at an environmental event. Until I met them, I had never heard of veganism. I was a vegetarian at the time. They told me about veganism and I immediately became a vegan. All of my family, extended family, most of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are omnivores. Why didn't I become a vegan when I was in the womb or when I was five years old or when I was ten years old? It's because of my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Not even our thoughts are free from these determinants, never mind actions. Could you think the thoughts I will think of in one minute's time? No. Just as I can't think of the thoughts you will think of in one minute's time. I don't even know what thoughts will occur to me in one minute's time.

Now we keep adding limitations and limitations, until we get to a point that, say, you're a starving beggar, and steal a bit of food from someone who wouldn't even notice. Most people would say you are not morally culpable for this, because your limitations and constraints are influencial enough that you can be excused.

Now, where does the line lie for you? The line that separates "constrained enough to not be morally reponsible" from not constrained enough. Is it when we've added hunger? When you get confined to a physical body? When you became faced with death? Or was it all the way at the beginning, at the second you lost your omnipotence and got your first limit, that you no longer became morally responsible? — khaled

My experiments and other people's experiments show that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. No living thing chooses to come into existence. No living thing chooses the genes, the early environments, nutrients, and experiences. As we get older, we try to get our preferred environments, nutrients, and experiences but we don't always succeed. For example, I used to get my nutrients as an omnivore but then I became a vegetarian when I became aware of the suffering and death an omnivorous diet causes. When I became aware of veganism, I saw that it was less harmful than being a vegetarian. So, I became a vegan. I actually want to be a nonconsumer. I tried living without consuming any oxygen, water and food but I failed. So, I am stuck with being a vegan even though I want to be a nonconsumer. Why aren't all living things nonconsumers? Why aren't all living things vegans? Why do omnivores, carnivores and parasites cause harm or even kill to get their nutrients? The answer is due to the interactions of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Are omnivores, carnivores and parasites morally culpable? I don't think so. They are prisoners of causality. Their choices are the products of determinants.To be morally culpable one needs to be 100% free from determinants. I have never met any omniscient and omnipotent beings. As far as I can speculate, an omniscient and omnipotent being would be free from constraints but even such a being would not be free from determinants. That's why I selected "No one" as my answer to the question "Who is morally culpable?" which I asked on the first post in this thread.

Overpopulation is a myth. The Earth is not overpopulated with humans - only our cities are. What we need to do is redistribute people evenly. Please see https://www.pop.org/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth

I agree with the other things you have said. I really hope that we wise up.

We should be cooperating over climate change and to a limited degree we are. We need to do much more but our selfishness and short-termism are getting in our way.

I haven't heard this before - the way you are defining the self is awesome!

What do you think will ensure global cooperation instead of global annihilation?

Yay! Something to celebrate!