Yes. See Behavior Analysis and the concept of replacement behaviors (fulfilling behaviors that are incompatible with the target behavior) - crucial for ridding oneself of unwanted habits. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Much appreciated! Psychology, one of my favorite subjects. Unfortunately, it seems I haven't put in the right effort (8- fold path). Woe is me! Can you refer me to a crash course website on psychology? Danke.

truisms — Joshs

So, they're true. Sorry if I'm a bit slow, nothing's obvious to me at all.

‘Better’ is synonymous with ‘pleasure’ , which is synonymous with what we desire or prefer. — Joshs

Indeed! So, we could say nothing is more pleasurable (better) than pleasure which then takes us back to square one. I wish I could say more. This is baffling I tell you. Are we on the same page or not?

A maze of ideas/words, I'm flummoxed!

There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.

Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place. — baker

Good call! Merci beaucoup. Anything else?

Epicurean =/= libertine (or hyper-consumerist/acquisitive), y'know. — 180 Proof

:ok: Good to know and muchas gracias.

Eureka!

Nothing is better than pleasure! Sayonara Epicurus. See you when you get there!

Sunyata! Nirvana!

That may be why humans have always imagined that there must be something better, something more, than this "vale of tears". Our advanced animal brains are not limited to the here & now, but can create alternative possible worlds, such as Plato's Ideal, and the Christian Heaven, or somewhat more mundane, a Garden of Eden, where grass-fed lions lay-down with their fellow vegetarian lambs. — Gnomon

Something's not quite right, ja?

The world, as it is, is dukkha (unsatisfactory), oui?

Yet, the attitude which I recommend is one that's common knowledge: If life gives ya lemons, make lemonade!

Make the best of what you have, si señor?

There's (probably) more...there always is, but that's all (for now).

Au revoir!

So no more avoiding and reducing and mitigating ... pain / fear / suffering? You're getting yourself lobotomized? radically desensitized via torture? euthanized? Having your CNS-brain's 'reward center' inhibited / excised? (Asking for an epicurean-spinozist friend) how are you going to just "let go" of that old conatus, Smith? — 180 Proof

I was hoping you'd have the answer 180 Proof. There's got to be a way, oui? Does your contradiction-meter give a reading? Mine does not, but that maybe because it's :broken: I'm used to contradictions in that I wouldn't be wrong if I said I've been exposed to a lethal dose of antinomies! Logic bombs going off in that thing between your ears ain't exactly a fun experience. I digress...or do I?

Aplologies accepted. But not saying anything because of being afraid of an asinus asinum fricat ...
(I let you complete the sentence. Anything will do! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:ok: Danke gracious human!

Arigato for the info. It only confirms my suspicion that there's a lot I don't know. Have you heard of reverse mathematics? No, unfortunately, I don't have a link. I hope Google takes you to right online resources. Good luck!

He or she clearly requested to be banned.

Any more stupid questions? — Jamal

I'm afraid no! Apologies. Good day!

The reason for your choice is the existential void you experiences? No pain, no happiness, no pleasure. Is you self-chastiding religion-inspired? Are you on the edge of accepting the damned gods? — Hillary

Gods? No pain, no happiness! :chin:

One cannot let go of something unless one has something better to hold on to — baker

You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you?

Done — Jamal

You can't be serious! What's his offense?

It appears that you've left the conclusion of your argument unstated. That's ok by me.

I'd say, belief formation occurs via two ways:

1. Rationally: I'd grill you like a chicken. :chin:

2. Emotionally: If your story stirs the right kinda feelings in me, I might ignore your logical errors. :smile:

The charioteer does have two horses [one, all brain, the other all heart; have you come across xin (heart-mind)?] according to Plato.

If you think about it more deeply you would end up with the conclusion that all of those characteristics are contradictory towards God's existence. I cannot put an argument about existentialism if I am using, at the same time, that this object could be physical or nonphysical at the same time. Like you have to choose one or another. Not both.
Aristotle: contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense — javi2541997

Certum est, quia impossibile. — Tertullian

It's complicated! :confused:

You get points for creativity.

All I can say is you manged to effectively highlight the point I wanted views on. What is a foolproof criterion to determine existence/nonexistence. Remember there are 4 things one has to possess the capability to affirm or deny:

1. Existence

2. Nonexistence

3. Physical

4. Nonphysical

Pity! I hoped that my suggestion about seing existence from a different angle and its relativity/subjectivity aspect --both of which actually support your thesis, what an irony!-- would appeal to you. I feel that you have just ignore them ... — Alkis Piskas

Apologies, my bad. I deliberately left out the parts we were on the same page on from my reply. I was afraid we might end up asinus asinum fricat (rationalization alert!).

"A man's maturity is to have rediscovered the seriousness he possessed as a child at play." — Hillary

Thanks for reminding me of that.

Check out this profile: Aryamoy Mitra

As far as I can tell, philosophy is chockablock with "contradictions" (thesis-antithesis, the one the general populace is most familiar with being theism-atheism). However, we don't say that is so because different people are theist and atheist.

Extrapolating from there we could say that, for instance, if I am expressing contradictory beliefs, there are at least two persons involved (multiple personality "disorder"). I believe that's the reason for dualism/pluralism - two opposite qualities can't be attributed to the same thing and hence the so-called The One, perforce, must undergo mitosis, figuratively speaking.

t's called, the method of the child. Look at its bafflement when it exams, still without method or well defined aim, the small piece of shit it finds on the street. "Don't touch that! Leave it there! It's dirty shit!" "It siiiiit, geat sit mama!" — Hillary

:fire: That touches a chord! I like it!

Children go through a question phase!

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

there is no objective reality — Alkis Piskas

Self-refuting? You want to make an objective claim, but you can't for the simple reason you'd have to eat your own words (I've done it my whole life, not recommended).

Also, I've been wondering. What's the difference between mass hysteria and objectivity? The psychiatric definition, from the likes of it, makes an exception for Lasègue–Falret syndrome i.e. if you have a quorum, insanity changes sign and becomes sanity. I guess the rule works in reverse as well.

The big secret is to take nothing seriously. — Hillary

:ok:

Good queries. I second a 2.5 k year old tehcnique for teaching/discussing philosophy - ask questions, ask more questions, then more and more questions. Don't stop...keep asking...questions. I believe it's called the Socratic method. From the little experience I've had, it should lead us directly to the doorsteps of aporia (bafflement/bewilderment), which is for me a very painful state to be in. Nevertheless, I'm an eager beaver as far as the next stage - ataraxia (equanimity) - is concerned!

Zen moments! You gotta love 'em, you gotta hate 'em. :confused:

Perhaps the attitude we adopt towards life can make a big difference. Life as a game! Sounds like fun, oui? Does this remind you of what's the in thing these days, the so-called metaverse (an opportunity to assume an alter-ego that may or may not be identical to your actual personality).

Does anyone here have a Khan Academy account? We learn but we also earn energy points that's used in a game-like ranking system. You should try it out if you haven't already. I guarantee you'll learn, I mean have a ball, oh...what's the difference? :wink:

Krishnamurti is apropos here. He claims, in one of his lectures, take life seriously, life is very a very serious affair, but, he goes on to say, that doesn't mean you don't laugh, you don't enjoy, you get the idea!

There's more...

The issue is, it seems, rather simple: We don't question the existence of mud, but we're unsure of the existence of Golems. Why? What's the reason for this differential treatment of mud & Golems (mud beings)?

In the absence of corroborating evidence, it's just "modern folklore" to me. — 180 Proof

:clap:

I'm not aware of any scientific studies which test "this hypothesis". — 180 Proof

Children are encouraged to play. I've seen dogs, cats, engage in mock battles with their pups an kittens. I suspect it's part of honing their hunting skills; prey animals too have their own games with, I suppose, escape (from predators) being the skill that needs to be mastered.

However, the effect of games on IQ, that's a different story. We'd need hard evidence and the data isn't as encouraging as we'd have liked it to be. Do sportspersons have high IQ? I don't think so.

Even so the nerd-folk and geeks tend to spend an almost inordinate amount of time gaming and they're usually smarter on average albeit physically, they're in the lower percentile.

The more important question I feel is this: Is the world a simulation game we're playing in nightmare mode (one life's all you get)? Ludic fallacy notwithstanding.

@Jack Cummins

From my college days, if memory serves, errors are of two kinds:

1. Haphazard/random errors: +/- (too much or too less) with no clear winner. Jack Cummins probably refers to these as noise.

2. Systematic errors: Bias, either always excessive or always deficient.

Both are errors in measurement/judgment

Systematic errors are a double whammy: not only are there errors but now the errors are, let's just say, unfair (partiality).

If you want to make mistakes, the moral of the story is, make random ones!

Desperately trying to mend broken wings while free fallin'.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A :cool: — 180 Proof

:lol:

No — Banno

:grin: You killed my thread. I'm gonna press charges. You're a meme murderer! See you in court Banno!

flu — Jack Cummins

Get well soon Jack!

Fall of Man

Have we picked ourselves up from the ground? Are we still falling? Did we die from the fall? What is it? pray tell!

:ok:

Only to a simulated agent (within it's native simulation) which, in that case, makes the question itself moot since "real" – ineluctable – to the agent is what matters ontologically independent of epistemology.
("By Crom!" ↪180 Proof) — 180 Proof

Good point

1. Ontological: Either true that the world is real or the world is unreal.

2. Epistemological: We don't know.

Remember our discussion in the other thread (God & Existence). It looks this thread is about the same issue: Real (nonphysical) vs. Unreal (nonexistence). Can tell them apart!

Vacuum is (scientifically) a region where the pressure is 0 Pa.

The next question what is pressure?

Pressure is the net force exerted by particles over a given area.

That means a vacuum

1. Is made of particles that don't exert a force

2. is a region where there are no particles

Nonphysical vs. Nonexistence!

Amazing! Danke 180 Proof! From the bottom of my :heart: danke!

Awesome! Indeed, I'm looking for a red pill. In most films on the simulation theory the real is depicted as less glamorous, more drab than the simulation itself. Perhaps dullness can be used as a reliable indicator of how real a world is. That has some disturbing implications such as hell is probably real and heaven just a figment of our imagination, a mere fantasy.

We don't want to live in the real world, it's too depressing (re suicide & melancholia). :chin: Antinatalism?

Because of faith. They just have beliefs, theists do not want knowledge. Even, when they use that, they tend to commit terrible paradoxes about God's existence. — javi2541997

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

If you don't give a rat's ass about logic, anything goes!

Awesome!

Insofar as "nonphysical" entails disembodied, it's indistinguishable from "nonexistent". Perhaps X is "nonphysical", such as an idea –it is subsistent instead (Meinong et al). — 180 Proof

True that! :clap:

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence.

God is an idea! :chin:

Meinong! Clever chap!

I definitely agree that it is worth striving for making the best and fullest judgments possible. — Jack Cummins

Jack hits the bullseye!

I work in a small office and over the years I've learned a valuable lesson: perfection is impossible BUT we must, at all times, do the best given the available information & resources. Maximize gains with what you have (real) and not what you'd like to have (imaginary)! What say you Jack? A good judge should be able to say more.

Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia!

A Scandal in Bohemia (Sherlock Holmes & Dr. Watson).

Divine Fallacy!

No worries — 180 Proof

But I worry! :chin: