My humble opinion follows:

If I may say so there are two worlds. One is outside - the physical world, the universe itself. The other is inside - our mind. I make this distinction because we have the power of imagination. This exceptional mental tool allows us to go beyond the limits of the physical world e.g. we can think of unicorns, santa claus, etc. I consider this unique ability of the mind sufficient to warrant the distinction inside and outside even though the mind is obviously part of the physical universe itself.

That said let us attempt to answer the question "Where is the truth?"

First the mind. In this particular world resides some truths that are arrived at through the sole us of or most powerful thinking tool - logic. A good example of truths that exist only in the mind is pure mathematics. In such cases we could, without erring, answer the OP's question by saying truth is in the mind.

Secondly, the physical world. This is not so easy for the simple reason that our minds cannot be factored out - we are doomed to think, so to speak. However we can still make a distinction here that should allow us to consider the truths of mind and the truths of our physical world as separate. How I make this distinction is that truths of the physical world require a correspondence between the physical world and the mind. For example...if a tree falls you should also be thinking a tree is falling. This additional requirement is absent in truths of the mind alone. Since, in this case, truth is a relation between the mind and the physical world I don't know how to describe a locus for such truths. It's at the boundary between the mind and the physical world - that's the best I can do.

Another issue here is that mind-truths like mathematics are absolute (as far as I know). They're unchanging...2+2 is always 4. Static.

However truths of the physical world are in a state of flux in the 4th dimension - time. As observers of nature we're always in the shadow of the problem of induction, as is all of science, and that may warrant the additional question ''when is the truth?''

It's all bullshit.

One thing noting is that ''pleasure'' in humans differ from that in animals.

For animals sex, food, relaxing, playing are pleasurable activities. This form of pleasure is also present in humans. However, there are certain other ''pleasures'' that are unique to humans viz. Knowledge, sharing, self-sacrifice, etc. I think these are referred to by philosophers as ''higher forms'' of pleasure.

While it all boils down to pleasure of some form it is important not to forget that human pleasure is quite ''different'' as I said above.

Perhaps you already make that distinction in your post.

To cut the story short I think that a life without ''higher forms'' of pleasure is not worth living because we humans are capable of transcending the base ego and when that's not done human life becomes pointless. Don't you think?

Well I wonder why there's an old adage ''Silence is golden''

I don't agree with any of those statements. Big bang "in sync with creation"? Wtf — jkop

I think the purported ''beginning'' of the universe 13.8 billion years ago can be easily interpreted as the moment God ''created'' the universe. There's nothing unreasonable about that is there?

I'm a free speech absolutist. — Terrapin Station

You maybe right. I don't know. But I thought you, as a philosopher, would make the distinction between free speech and hate speech.

I'm not in favor of any expression prohibitions — Terrapin Station

Even Islamic jihadist expressions?! Treading on a fine line there Terrapin Station

What's your standard of "guilt"? — VagabondSpectre

Well, guilt is an odd creature. With all the evidence and his own sworn testimonies it is, in a way, quite ''obvious'' that Dylann is guilty. And if there's anything I've learned in this forum is that one must be most cautious when faced with the obvious.

My concern is when we deal with Islamic terrorism we hunt and punish, implying of course that guilt is more complex than it appears, the people who radicalized the perpetrator. Why not apply the same logic here and hunt/punish the white supremacist group who radicalized Mr. Dylann Roof? Simple.

Also, should we hold him "responsible" and incarcerate him? — VagabondSpectre

We should be just and that demands casting a wider net of guilt as I explained above.

Because then you're following theism, not science. You're not following science by assuming that science would be discovering the work of a theist god. — jkop

I agree that there are differences between science and religion but they can be boiled down to only two issues viz. cosmology and evolution.

To add, the big bang theory is in sync with the idea of creation and evolution is merely the product of natural laws, laws framed by a divine being.

So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science.

Here's why the death penalty errs...

If x stole some money the judicial sentence doesn't require something of same value be stolen from him.

If x rapes a woman then the law doesn't require the rape of x.

The same may be said of all crimes EXCEPT murdering someone. Why so?

And of course sometimes life sentences are worse than the death penalty.

Good luck. I'm sure you can do it.

You've picked a great handle. — Wayfarer

:D

I'm being serious. He's not insane - there's nothing wrong with disliking people who are different. There's a plethora of phobias. Some abstract like phobia of the number 13. Others like homophobia. This particular case being xenophobia. These are not mental illnesses are they?

He's not guilty because fear and its usual partner hate can result in momentary lapses of judgment.

What say you? :)

This type of behavior is not new

Dylann Roof is not insane and he's not guilty either. It's just primordial instincts

Become one!

But you can't be a theist and follow science, because by concluding that "god did it", prior to, or regardless of, a scientific discovery in support of such a conclusion, is not to follow science at all but theism. — jkop

Why not? I thought theists solved this problem long ago by arguing that the universe and its laws were God's work and we simply discover them.

We can interpret this as God, but we can also interpret this as not God but of some another materialistic thing. So then we can reinterpret this as some new "something" that is both God but not God. — FLUX23

Do you have an easy-to-understand conception of this ''something'' you refer to. My imagination fails me.

Also ''both God but not God'' is a contradiction provided that ''God'' refers to the same thing.

I’m not sure how your comment fits into our discussion here or even my hypothesis. Could you make the connection more clear to me please? — Raphi

Well, an orgasm is not simply a degree of suffering.

I don't see emotions as a weakness. I see it as one of the necessary ingredients to create, explore, and learn. It is what makes life interesting — Rich

I agree with you; emotions do make life interesting. I was merely pointing out what is commonly thought of as detrimental effects on rational thinking.

The evolutionary purpose of both logic and intuition is to satisfy the emotions. — MonfortS26

Therein lies human weakness (if it is true).

This is a joke someone told me...

A pessimist sees a dark tunnel.
An optimist sees light at the end of the tunnel.
A realist sees a train.

The train driver sees 3 idiots on the tracks.

We can interpret this as God, but we can also interpret this as not God but of some another materialistic thing. — FLUX23

But isn't this a perfect description of our current situation? E.g. the ''design'' seen in the universe is taken as a product of chance on one hand and god on the other.

select text. ''Quote'' option will appear on screen

That's way over my head. Anyway thanks for the new ideas you shared.:)

You want me to type out a book? I don't really think I could sufficiently answer that question on an internet forum — Jeremiah

Sometimes a single word may describe an entire book e.g. The Bible can be represented by the word ''hogwash'' to an atheist and ''God'' to a theist. Can you not express your views in a paragraph or so?

Never said it fails. — Jeremiah

What's the difference between religion and philosophy?

and Please view my reply to StreetlightX

I'm not sure what you mean. A flat piece of paper is 2D as far as I know and anything ''written'' on it is also 2D. The depth of the letter conveys no extra information.

If I understand you correclty what you're saying is language is far greater than the written word and communication takes place in rather complex ways. I didn't know that. Thanks.

However I wish to confine myself to the written word i.e. symbols that convey info. Take the English alphabet. Each letter represents a sound and we have to spell out our thoughts and emotions, literally.

Consider the following English expressions.

''I'm good'' said John angrily
''I'm good'' said John sadly
''I'm good'' said John happily

As you can see we need to, well, spell everything out.

Now think of a cone (a 3D shape). It could be used to represent the the sentence ''I'm good'' instead of individual sounds and then we could point it to the left to convey anger, to the right to convey joy and so on. Simpler and more compact isn't it?

I think the Chinese language with its ideograms comes closest to my idea. However it's obviously complicared by having to limit itself to 2D.

Yes it is true that simplicity should be an essential feature of any language and in that sense the languages we use are quite efficient. I guess you make the same point as apokrisis.

Please refer to my reply to apokrisis

Good point. I see how a ''simpler (lower dimensional)'' coding system would be, well, simpler and perhaps, that much more practical or ''better''.

However let me draw an analogy to convey my intent.

Proteins have 4 levels of organization/structure.

The primary structure is linear in which the main code is simply the sequence of amino acids. In this primary form the protein molecule is functionless.

Then we have secondary structure consisting of helices and/or sheets. This structure is determined by theprimary structure. It is still functionless.

Intermediately we have the tertiary structure wherein the secondary structure elements (helices and sheets) determine how the protein folds into a 3D molecule. This structure and level of organisation is now a functional element of the human body.

Lastly we have quarternary structure in which different tertiary structure proteins interact to form a functional combination of molecules.

I envisage something like that with language. As the dimensions of written language increase its functional repertoire should (I think) increase.

Thank you very much for the reply.

However, even in your examples we are still stuck in 2D, employing conventions to relay the info that we're dealing with 3D objects.

Wouldn't a 3D script/alphabet kind of release us from restrictions inherent in 2D scripts?

Hard to know. — Baden

Use your imagination friend

Well...I don't have to worry about copyrights then.

With an option for life or death; its life! Life comes ones — thikmaz

Well recent developments in world history seem contrary to your position (terrorism). There are plenty of things people are willing to kill or die for.

hat seems like the top priority of ethics at all angles. — thikmaz

But do you think that's right or justified?

Given that life is precious since it cannot be manufactured in a factory or the like do you think it reasonable not to prioritize it over what is good/bad?

I mean if you ever face a situation where you're given the two options of death on one hand and being good on the other would you opt for death?

:D Don't ask me...I said I was confused

Tell that to Genghis Khan :)

Yeah, I guess that's why they invented tax. — intrapersona

And almost everything else:-}

Is it sex or is it power? I'm confused:(

Death is immanent
Nothing is permanent
Learn to enjoy life
Even when in strife

This is perhaps one of the main reasons why we place pain on a higher priority than pleasure in ethics — darthbarracuda

I don't think that's accurate. In ethics the primary concern is good even at the cost of life.

Is the golden rule flawed? — Ovaloid

The golden rule is perfect
It's we who suffer the defect

Perhaps we are not on the way between anywhere but actually have both instincts encoded in to our genes, that way we can work to suit both environments and indeed there exists both environments in our modern societies. — intrapersona

I guess we're amphibious in a way, having the best of both worlds. Somehow we're made to serve the community while still trying to achieve our self-interest.