This seems to be setting up a scenario drenched in unnecessary moral rumination and hand-wringing. — Tom Storm

Perhaps it's a natural initial reaction to suspect the intentions of strangers. I am certainly engaging in moral rumination, your opinion that its unnecessary is of course, subjective. Your suggestion, that I maybe 'hand-wringing,' (perhaps you also see a manifest image of me, in your head, maniacally laughing!) is a bit more malevolent and quite a jump, a bit over the top Tom.

Most people live and die and do not require the consolations of philosophy or deep dives into ethical concerns. In life, they do what they can - they love, they raise children and maybe even take care of some friends/neighbors along the way. They have meaningful relationships with others, do a job they enjoy and generally stay out of other people's business. Job done. I've known many of these people and they tend to die happy and leave others who regret their death. — Tom Storm

I think you 'play down' 'most people,' by what you type here. I don't think you do so deliberately but I think you misrepresent them. Most people I have met or observed (perhaps a similar number to you,) all have their favourite 'philosophical' statements or a 'personal code,' or 'list of motivations,' that they follow and live by. I agree with all the activities you mention above but I think that people in general, muse about life the Universe and everything more that you suggest above. Even those who seem 'pretty vacant,' can often surprise you with a single sentence or two when their mask or their various protective, well-practiced role play, slips a little. I am not so sure about your last sentence above.
I agree about the regret/mourning of others but I have watched a 'fair amount,' of YouTube material now on those who study end of life, and Neuropsychiatry and Neurophysiology. I have found the material by Doctor Peter Fenwick and Doctor Susan Blackmore informative. I think Fenwick holds that consciousness may exist beyond the brain, which I don't subscribe to, but his studies of death and n.d.e's etc are based on Science and not supernatural BS. Based on what I have viewed, I think death is not studied enough and people remain too ignorant and afraid of the processes involved.


We need to stop treating death as such a 'no go subject.'

I think the questions you raise about asking someone 'who are you?' and 'what do you want,' are fair.

The first question assumes that people think of themselves in a such a way that allows them to describe their life in sound bites. People tend to feel who they are, they don't communicate it. — Tom Storm

You also engage in assumption here. You assume that people cannot communicate to others regarding who they are, you assume they can only 'feel' who they are. I disagree. They may use a sound bit style if they wish but I still think asking yourself these two questions and making a serious attempt to answer them can reveal a great deal about yourself to yourself. Choosing to share your findings with others or answering the two questions 'in public,' remains a personal choice.

The second question 'what do you want?' is equally stilted. Just what are you asking? Again the question feels like it's trying to narrow the range of human experience into a constricted template that doesn't fit a life lived. Again, I am not sure what you are asking. What does 'want' mean or refer to? — Tom Storm

Perhaps the question asks you to be honest with yourself. Encouragement not to be afraid of your most base thoughts. Jordan Peterson places himself in the position of a holocaust camp guard during WW2 and tries to analyse his own personal motivations if put in such a situation. A person might admit to themselves that they want to be rich and marry a catwalk queen. Perhaps if they admit this and speak to their friends about it, they might get more information about the possible downfalls involved in such pursuits.

I do admit that such questions' in the raw,' can be dangerous for some, without professional support.
If their personal answers are honest and sincere but would be judged by most as pure evil. Is it better to expose such to yourself or do your best to subdue and risk losing control over such thoughts? I don't have the psychiatric qualifications to know for sure. What do you think?

Well, now that you mention it, knowledge is a struggle and the educational system we have at the moment is a huge waste of time for the simple reason that for a decent life, all one needs is common sense — Agent Smith

I think your true position here runs far deeper than you reveal but I will spare you any amateur attempt at psychoanalysis on my part. Do you think you could live by common sense alone? The 'simple' life is a 'happy,' life? Could you succeed in training your brain not to present/manifest the 'deep questions' anymore or will you always be a 'knowledge junkie,' all your life? I think I will, I don't think I could kick that particular habit. Perhaps we need to approach the trauma that can come with the 'quest for enlightenment or profundity,' in ways that might reduce its potential sting. Do you think the simple admission and expectation and self-recognition that the quest has many pitfalls and you will fall into some of them makes it easier to cope when 'shit happens?' but the wonderful quest remains.
I think I do something like that even though I am cringing at the Arthurian imagery running through my head as I type this.

Knowing the equations for conic sections or the chemical formula of turpentine or the staple diet of the French, most of the stuff you learn in school, is perhaps meant to hone this life skill but it's a rather convoluted and painful way of doing so. I've seen people with no formal education doing better than those with. Where did we go wrong? — Agent Smith

:lol: Yeah, I know what you mean. As a teacher, I saw so many flaws in established curricula and I do see the sense in a more personalised, interest-driven curriculum. This may actually happen in the future when education is home-based and completely electronic. The traditional school system is becoming more and more challenged by technology. What do you mean by the words 'doing better.' I find that very hard to judge on a case-by-case basis. I have met individuals who seem to be living a very happy life and then find out that the whole thing was a complete charade and they were actually quite unhappy people. I am tempted to ask you 'what do you want' Agent Smith?

What do you think? — universeness

I think we have different world views.

Your suggestion, that I maybe 'hand-wringing,' (perhaps you also see a manifest image of me, in your head, maniacally laughing!) is a bit more malevolent and quite a jump, a bit over the top Tom. — universeness

Err, it's not all about you... I was writing about 'the scenario' you dramatised.

In essence we hold different views about nomenclature and approach. I think it is fair to ask questions about our systems of value, so enjoy... Bear in mind that for many people it does end up in analysis paralysis and a whole lot of navel gazing foolery that is of little use to anyone.

I feel like the option is always there for me to sink into the joy of my current situation, and ask no more questions in this march towards an inevitable death. And I’ve done that for a time, afraid to ask for more in case the asking risked what I already had. — Possibility

I sooooo recognise this, first as a 'now and then' recurrence in myself and in almost all of my friends.
I love the 'ask for more' bit firstly in the Dickensian tradition of the hungry Oliver and in the more humorous vein of 'who are we asking?'

But I’m done living in fear — Possibility

:strong: :clap: :clap:

I have found that seeking wisdom puts all these other pursuits into perspective: I am conscious that pursuing family/interconnectedness masks a yearning for ‘me’ time, focusing on wealth ignores a craving for the simple things in life, and seeking power disguises a longing for interconnectedness. — Possibility

Yep, I think I see myself somewhere in this crowd too.

Maslow said ‘you will either step forward into growth or backward into safety’ - it seems the majority of existence will choose safety when it comes down to it, and that can keep them busy enough to maintain, in itself — Possibility

Pursuit of profundity has risk, sometimes serious risk, but I so agree with this. If we as a species do not even achieve the ability for some of us to exist beyond this planetary nest then I dont think we can claim to have done so much better than the dinosaurs did. Ok, we moulded/affected the planet much more than they did but we have no more protection from extinction than they did, and we never will have unless we become at least an interplanetary species. We should just have stayed in the caves and forests and enjoyed the pretty flora and treated any pesky philosophers and scientists amongst us as dangerous enemies that must be eliminated. We could always excuse ourselves by claiming but that's what our god(s) want. I will stop this line now in-case I enter rant mode. :smile:

I think there are also many who, in prioritising profundity, have settled for the safety of simply being the smartest person in the room — Possibility

Well, I do prioritise it but others regularly demonstrate to me the folly of ever assuming you are the smartest person in the room. Even forms of intelligence and specialisation of field are quite myriad.
Someone who seems pretty vacant on one topic may be almost an expert at something I know little about.

Which leads me to ask: when you say that a person has family/love/power/wealth/fame, how are you making that assessment? Is it through self-comparison, part of their own claims, or is there some objective status they’ve attained? — Possibility

There is such a lot of historical evidence in this area. All powerful tyrants/kings/autocrats fall eventually and their legacy to me, seems much heavier on the negative rather than the positive from Alexander (the scumbag IMO) (the great) through to other (IMO scumbags) such as Napolean, Hitler, Stalin etc, etc, to the current day Putin's and Trumps. How many wealthy, powerful people from politicians to pop stars to playrights live what seem to me quite horrible lives and die way before they naturally should have. Without wisdom, family/love/power/wealth/fame seem to fail miserably. That is another reason why I prioritise it so highly.

But the process of asking does keep bringing us back to our actual interaction with the world - which is sometimes neglected in this pursuit of profundity. Wisdom is more about the accurate application of understanding in relation to the world, than simply possessing knowledge. — Possibility

Again, very good commentary! In my opinion.

In my humble opinion, I've never asked any deep questions; so I wouldn't know what they are first-hand. However, I do recall reading up on how some queries get to the heart of an issue (that's my definition of a deep question).

I listened to a Sam Harris (atheist, neuroscientist) lecture last night as I dozed off. He said one word that satisfies my definition of profundity and that word was "structural". Every issue seems to possess a form that's both generalizable but also possessed of features unique to it. This is clichéd now but since I came to know of it, it's always been at the back of my mind, buried somewhere in my subconscious or something like that.

Horse sense is, per my views, what enables you to cut through the noise and tune into the signal. Pattern recognition is all there is to intelligence/wisdom: there's no difference between a casanova grasping how to bed women and a physicist sussing out a formula that describes some phenomenon s/he's investigating - both require you to notice patterns (in women and in nature, respectively).

That's all for now! I've run out of steam.

Err, it's not all about you... I was writing about 'the scenario' you dramatised — Tom Storm

This seems to be setting up a scenario — Tom Storm

Well, I was the one who was 'setting up the scenario,' so who else are you suggesting is 'hand wringing,' if not me?

In essence we hold different views about nomenclature and approach. I think it is fair to ask questions about our systems of value, so enjoy... Bear in mind that for many people it does end up in analysis paralysis and a whole lot of navel gazing foolery that is of little use to anyone. — Tom Storm

Differences in nomenclature and approach are very useful for the sake of comparison and debate.
Which combination/choice of nomenclature and approach causes the most useful and beneficial results is for the judgment of others, sometimes this can be as low a level of importance as personal taste.
Yes, it is not only fair but essential to ask questions about value systems.
I personally do enjoy doing so. I rarely experience analysis paralysis but like everyone else, I do struggle with many concepts and posits. 'Navel gazing foolery that is of little use to anyone,' is one of those phrases which is easily thrown directly back at the source who clarion calls the danger of such. We can all be wrong, the important 'value' for me is to encourage all to try to become wiser without suggesting so in an arrogant or deprecative way. and to prioritise that goal, more than becoming personally richer, more famous or more powerful or too focussed on matters regarding your own ego.

Pursuit of profundity has risk, sometimes serious risk, but I so agree with this. If we as a species do not even achieve the ability for some of us to exist beyond this planetary nest then I dont think we can claim to have done so much better than the dinosaurs did. Ok, we moulded/affected the planet much more than they did but we have no more protection from extinction than they did, and we never will have unless we become at least an interplanetary species. We should just have stayed in the caves and forests and enjoyed the pretty flora and treated any pesky philosophers and scientists amongst us as dangerous enemies that must be eliminated. We could always excuse ourselves by claiming but that's what our god(s) want. I will stop this line now in-case I enter rant mode. :smile: — universeness

To be honest, I think this interplanetary pursuit must take a back seat to understanding how we can collaborate with the ecosystem we have, rather than mould/affect it in pursuit of our own short-sighted demands - otherwise we’re no better than locusts moving on to strip another location of its resources. That’s my two cents, anyway.

Well, I do prioritise it but others regularly demonstrate to me the folly of ever assuming you are the smartest person in the room. Even forms of intelligence and specialisation of field are quite myriad.
Someone who seems pretty vacant on one topic may be almost an expert at something I know little about. — universeness

:up:

In my humble opinion, I've never asked any deep questions; so I wouldn't know what they are first-hand. However, I do recall reading up on how some queries get to the heart of an issue (that's my definition of a deep question). — Agent Smith

Is this somewhere between false modesty and wordplay? If you contribute to conversations such as 'why are we?' and 'where did the Universe come from?' and god? then you are asking deep questions.
I won't copy all your thread titles here and highlight those that, I think, qualifies as a 'deep question,' but I think they are good examples amongst them.

I listened to a Sam Harris (atheist, neuroscientist) lecture last night as I dozed off. He said one word that satisfies my definition of profundity and that word was "structural". Every issue seems to possess a form that's both generalizable but also possessed of features unique to it. This is clichéd now but since I came to know of it, it's always been at the back of my mind, buried somewhere in my subconscious or something like that. — Agent Smith

A nice little insight into your personal musings Agent Smith. Good stuff!

Pattern recognition is all there is to intelligence/wisdom: there's no difference between a casanova grasping how to bed women and a physicist sussing out a formula that describes some phenomenon s/he's investigating - both require you to notice patterns (in women and in nature, respectively). — Agent Smith

But computers are very good at pattern matching, more efficient and faster than us at it but theystill can't think like we can......yet!
Any time I have tried to predict what a woman will do next based on her pattern of previous behavior, I have been often, dead wrong. I don't think the behavior of most individuals is as predictable as you suggest, especially if you rely solely on matching previous patterns of behavior. It would certainly be very unwise to ignore previous patterns of behavior but also unwise to use it as your only driver for reactive decision making.
I think it's the same at the current boundaries of Science, when it comes to such as quantum fluctuations, for example. Known particulate patterns of behavior don't seem to apply and there seems to be very little available that can be used as a reliable predictive tool.

That's all for now! I've run out of steam. — Agent Smith

I'm sure that a water refill and a reheat will replenish your 'puff.'

To be honest, I think this interplanetary pursuit must take a back seat to understanding how we can collaborate with the ecosystem we have, rather than mould/affect it in pursuit of our own short-sighted demands - otherwise we’re no better than locusts moving on to strip another location of its resources. That’s my two cents, anyway. — Possibility

Well, such 'warning bells' of caution are well made.
I think we must globally unite, no more countries, no currencies, no rich, no imbalances of power or cults of personality/celebrity. I am just struggling a little as to how I can best go about making all that happen......now!.....that's all.
I don't advocate for putting interplanetary existence on the back seat. I want to supercharge the efforts towards it but I also want to supercharge all efforts towards a far better stewardship of Earth.
I think we must do both or else.........I do think we may go the way of the Dino's.

How do you measure deep?

How do you measure deep? — Jackson

My personal answer would be by how much the posit challenges my current conclusions.

Well, such 'warning bells' of caution are well made.
I think we must globally unite, no more countries, no currencies, no rich, no imbalances of power or cults of personality/celebrity. I am just struggling a little as to how I can best go about making all that happen......now!.....that's all.
I don't advocate for putting interplanetary existence on the back seat. I want to supercharge the efforts towards it but I also want to supercharge all efforts towards a far better stewardship of Earth.
I think we must do both or else.........I do think we may go the way of the Dino's. — universeness

I don’t think we’ll ‘save’ most of humanity, to be honest - but we’re far too adaptable and resourceful to go the way of the dinosaurs, even if we stay. So, if only a small percentage of humans will emerge from this, what kind of legacy do we want to leave as a whole? Those with enough wealth/power/influence to wrangle a ticket out of here, or those with enough wisdom to collaborate with the planet as well as each other? I know which one I’d vote for...

We have no current control over extinction via natural disasters such as a big rock from space or the Yellowstone caldera erupting and causing massive, very fast, climate change. There is always a chance of survivors but it's also possible that only microbial-sized organic material would survive depending on how big the rock is or how bad the climate gets, and the whole, evolution/natural selection process could go back to near to the beginning of that process. I think it was mostly the smallest animals that survived that which killed the dinosaurs, along with some avian and aquatic species.
If we stay in this single planet then we are simply easier to eradicate. The more we are spread out in the Universe the better our chances of survival. Taking the very long-term view would suggest becoming interplanetary or even better, interstellar is prudent.

Those with enough wealth/power/influence to wrangle a ticket out of here, or those with enough wisdom to collaborate with the planet as well as each other? I know which one I’d vote for... — Possibility

I prefer that staying on or leaving the Earth becomes a choice for everyone regardless of wealth/power/influence. If you are talking about 'an impending planetary doom' scenario where Earthlings are all scrambling to leave then yeah, that will always be horrific. Despite such horror, I am hoping for a distant future situation whereby the destruction of the Earth would not mean the end of our species. I totally agree with you that we must stop soiling our own nest or we add to the chances of our extinction but even if we achieved that we still face many other dangers.

Do animals experience so-called profundity?

Does a chimp go "That's deep, dude!"?

Does an ant stop dead in its tracks, food in its jaws, and ask "Why am I doing this again?"

These are instances when true common sense bubbles up to the surface and pops into your head. We're (hyper)focused and that means a lot of good stuff escape our notice: Selective attention test (vide infra)

Do animals experience so-called profundity? — Agent Smith

Well the obvious answer is yes, because humans are a subset of all animals.
Do the 'next most intelligent species to humans on Earth' experience profundity, I have no idea.
I don't think we have got much past very rudimentary communication with other animal species.
Koko the Gorilla was reported as having an IQ between 75 and 90 but I don't think tests were done to demonstrate its ability to categorise knowledge based on how profound it was.
So a chimp may well think that what another chimp showed it how to do was 'deep dude' or profound.
We just can't speak enough chimpaneese yet to know for sure.

These are instances when true common sense bubbles up to the surface and pops into your head. We're (hyper)focused and that means a lot of good stuff escape our notice — Agent Smith

Yeah, I watched the clip and didn't notice the guy in the suit as I was distracted by focussing on the moving white shirts and the ball but science will repeat the experimentation many many many times so sure, you can distract and fool people often but not all the people all the time. I still think your comment of 'all you need is common sense,' is misleading as it seemed 'common sense' to me to follow the benign instructions at the beginning of your clip and follow that 'pattern' as it unfolded. If I had put my 'i bet there is a trick to this somewhere,' hat on then I would have used a more wide vision stance and not trusted my 'common sense.' Perhaps we just differ on what encompasses the term 'common sense.'

the important 'value' for me is to encourage all to try to become wiser — universeness

What does wiser mean?

Well the obvious answer is yes, because humans are a subset of all animals. — universeness

This is a profound statement in my book.

I still think your comment of 'all you need is common sense,' is misleading — universeness

Perhaps we're talking past each other. All I can say here is that by common sense I mean the ability to detect/extract patterns (from everyday experiences). Once one has mastered the skill, all you need to do is apply to so-called intellectual activities known for being tough like STEM.

What does wiser mean? — Tom Storm

Why are you attempting to test my understanding of the term, perhaps it would have been wiser to offer your own. It would have been less petty.

It's a subjective judgment call that can be applied by others to an individual but it has great value when applied by many to a single individual. How warranted it is when it has been applied to someone is open to review and is only confirmed through regular demonstration but it's a measure I personally value over all other measures of an individual when we have 'HUmanS as the measure of all things.'
I can exemplify many 'wise word statements,' both from history and from contemporary sources, if you need me to, but I am sure you have your own.

Why are you attempting to test my understanding of the term, perhaps it would have been wiser to offer your own. It would have been less petty. — universeness

Not it's not petty, it is asking what you mean by wiser? How does one measure an increase in wiseness?

Please try to focus on philosophy and not on imagined slights.

How warranted it is when it has been applied to someone is open to review and is only confirmed through regular demonstration but it's a measure I personally value over all other measures of an individual when we have 'HUmanS as the measure of all things.' — universeness

So you are saying wiseness is a problematic term. I think that's sensible.

Perhaps we're talking past each other — Agent Smith

Misunderstanding between contributors to a particular thread is often more prevalent than understanding is. The typed word is a clumsy tool at best.

All I can say here is that by common sense I mean the ability to detect/extract patterns (from everyday experiences). — Agent Smith

Yeah, I get that, and I fully accept the importance of 'common sense.' An important skill to have and demonstrate but I am simply suggesting that I don't think that's enough to make profound breakthroughs in understanding new knowledge at the current leading edges of Science or Human affairs.

Once one has mastered the skill, all you need to do is apply to so-called intellectual activities known for being tough like STEM. — Agent Smith

To achieve what? A degree.....A PHD......A career? All valuable stuff but only beginnings in any personal quest for profundity.

How does one measure an increase in wiseness? — Tom Storm

By personal judgment!

Please try to focus on philosophy and not on imagined slights. — Tom Storm

Please don't attempt to talk down to me, I will respond in kind. Your sentence above just comes across as you throwing your toys out of your pram!

So you are saying wiseness is a problematic term. I think that's sensible — Tom Storm

You seem to be attempting a rather infantile 'carrot and stick,' style exchange with me. A tried old strategy.
It can be very problematic indeed if applied incorrectly to a nefarious influential individual.
Those who labeled and still label Donal Trump wise caused and continue to cause many 'problems.'

What do you call that additional quality we need to take our understanding of the world to the next level?

You seem to be attempting a rather infantile 'carrot and stick,' style exchange with me. A tried old strategy. — universeness

For whatever reason it seems to me you are not able to communicate as an honest interlocutor. No worries. Bye.

I don't think there is any single quality that would suffice. 'Wise' is vital but I can suggest many labels that might be applied to those who I personally would 'push forward,' as my best candidates for 'a better future for all of us.'
If I was to offer an ideal recipe as 'the ingredients for making my next great hope.' It might be something like:

Wisdom
Experience
Expertise
Indefatigability (energy levels like those of childhood)
Wonderment
Love of the Universe and everything in it.
Humility
Little or no interest in personal aggrandisement/weath/power/influence

I could add a lot more and would settle for less. Like most people, I have a list of those I admire most.
Probably the most important to me has been Carl Sagan. I would have trusted him to lead any country in the world. The responsibility for who we push forward and what we do is ours.

What do you call that additional quality we need — Agent Smith

Maybe we need to nurture/search for these elusive qualities in ourselves as well as require them in others.

It can be very problematic indeed if applied incorrectly to a nefarious influential individual.
Those who labeled and still label Donal Trump wise caused and continue to cause many 'problems.' — universeness

Oh.. and yes, true enough.. Bye.

For whatever reason it seems to me you are not able to communicate as an honest interlocutor. No worries. Bye. — Tom Storm

Oh.. and yes, true enough.. Bye. — Tom Storm

Now that you have thrown your last two toys from your pram, your poor mommy/dada will have to go pick them all up. :naughty: Tom

:up:

:down:

:pray:

:blush: :up: :clap: