not better....more rational and I accept the rules of the game. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, ok!

Can I get back to you later? Muchas gracias.

The entities are only a sufficient cause if they provide what their absence does not. Simply listing God as a cause is no advance toward explaining phenomena. That is tantamount to saying nothing can be explained — Paine

You have a point! Please feel free to elaborate if you think there's a need to do so.

the difference is that I have acknowledged the beating I suffered by that metal sign and I gave up my comforting beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok, ok, you're better than the rest of us. :smile:

This makes me really happy to hear. Most individuals in here stick to their guns even when facts hit them in the face with a big metal sign with bold letter spelling "facts". — Nickolasgaspar

:up: You stick to your guns as well! So, fair and square, oui?

Sure....but looking the holes will never allow ''you" to see what we know. — Nickolasgaspar

:up:

God didn't evict/banish Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden because A & E wanted/gained power, not because A & E wanted/gained knowledge per se, but because A & E now had knowledge of ethics (good & evil). That means, God doesn't have an issue with humans being omnipotent or omniscient but he draws the line with omnibenevolence. What gives?

I agree with you - there's a lot of stuff that people present as philosophy but ain't. You provided a list in another thread on what pseudo-philosophy is and it was an eye-opener.

I up-voted Wayfarer's post because truth be told, our knowledege on consciousness is full of holes and so long as that's the case, people are justified in challenging any position one assumes on the nature of the mind.

God (omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent) is a good role model for boys in my humble opinion. I suppose that's why Adam, along with Eve, got kicked out of the garden of Eden. Adam became a competitor.

You might also like:

1. Muscular Christianity

2. Christian Manliness

@180 Proof thinks it's psychological projection.

Chronicling is NOT Philosophy. Kant or any other great philosopher of the past didn't have access to the epistemology available to us today....so its mainly a waste of time to either criticize outdated philosophy or to try and understand what they really meant when you can use our current knowledge and arrive to informed and far superior philosophical conclusions.
That is not a rule of course.... — Nickolasgaspar

:up: Thanks for letting us know. Philosophers have blind spots, like everyone else I suppose.

Our current epistemology demonstrates the Necessity and Sufficiency of brain mechanisms for the emergence of human mind states.
— Nickolasgaspar

‘It’ does no such thing. There is no such consensus. This is a philosophy forum, as such knowledge of neuroscience is not assumed or necessary, although at least some knowledge of philosophy would be considered desireable. — Wayfarer

:up:

All I can do here is point out the addictive nature of happiness; the word "crave/craving" is used to describe unbridled desire for drugs and, in my humble opinion, happiness. To reiterate, for emphasis, happiness = drug. @180 Proof, on more than one occasion, has mentioned joy to be a morphine drip.

Morphine appears to mimic the body's endorphins that are responsible for analgesia (reducing pain), causing sleepiness, and feelings of pleasure.

Why, oh why, does the pleasure system of our brains have receptors for plant molecules?

There's more:

Dopamine can promote the growth of plants under various stressful environments. More recent studies have shown that dopamine can enhance tolerance to drought, salt stress, and nutrient deficiency in plants. In addition, dopamine can improve the ability of plants to resist biological stressors.

The most important reward pathway in brain is the mesolimbic dopamine system, composed of the VTA (ventral tegumental area) and NAc (nucleus accumbens). This (VTA-NAc) circuit is a key detector of a rewarding stimulus.

There appears to be a connection between the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom vis-à-vis happiness.

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.

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?

Food for thought:

I tried to google this: How to identify plant molecules?

In my humble opinion this is a crucial question that needs an answer asap.

Why?

Well, look at how many psychogenic drugs have plant origins (marijuana, shrooms, tobacco, etc.). Is it possible that happiness neurochemicals of the reward center too are plant derivatives? Are animals being mind-controlled by plants?

Does anything and everything we do in the name of happiness directly/indirectly benefit plants? :chin:

Twice Born
1. Physical (you exit the womb)

Note, because our brains are so large and women's birth canals so small, we're born physically and mentally immature as infants.

2. Mental (your body brain matures, your IQ and EQ improves, you become an adult who can think for him/herself). For animals, this coincides with physical birth; if you'll take the time to notice, animals can walk, even run, feed, etc. within minutes after birth).

As you so rightly pointed out, happiness is our primary objective. It's just that craving for happiness is reminiscent of opium addiction. It can be used to manipulate us and unscrupulous folks have used opium addicts to commit crimes paid for with just the right amount of the drug to keep them coming back for more; the drug-crime cycle thus kicks off and sustains itself until the hapless addict is spent, following which s/he is ejected from the gang and left to die! Is momma nature a crime boss? :chin:

Language is delimiting, pulls things down to its own terms. — Constance

There are more things than there are words! The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao! The named are things that are critical to our well-being and I mean those things that are both harmful and/or beneficial; that which is neither, our minds ignore for a good reason in my humble opinion viz. to nip information overload in the bud. We've evolved to sense only mates, prey and predators and anything else that gets caught in this sensory net, being the right size in a manner of speaking.

I think a happy chimp has more intelligence than someone who never finds happiness. — Gregory

Better Socrates dissatiafied than a fool statisfied — John Stuart Mill (Hedonic ethics aka utilitarianism)

Opinions seem divided. No clear-cut answer as to whether pleasure/happiness is the be-all-and-end-all of life. Cypher (The Matrix) did choose an illusory happiness over the miserable truth; so yeah, the OP's proposal does have takers.

As for absence of a correlation between IQ and success, IQ tests are a bit too abstract and quite removed from real-word, concrete problems for anyone with just common sense, the actual determiner of how well one does in life, to suss out without the necessary amount of familiarity, familiarity that comes with praxis.

I know a lot of people who would solve many of the questions on IQ test if only they were asked in the right way. What is the right way depends on what sort of experiences people have.

The crux of IQ tests is pattern-recognition and I'm willing to bet a lot of money that everyone is proficient in this skill; lacking this ability would mean certain death or grievous injury i.e. schmucks (like me) have short, painful lives.

I said you had a hand in it - not that you consciously chose them. — Possibility

Then we're on the same page. :up:

I don't think there's a syndicate or organization with the sole purpose of generating and perpetuating delusions. All I can say at the moment is we don't seem to be 100% rational, a necessity, won't you agree?, for our second birth (we are born twice I believe), 1^st physically, then 2^nd mentally. Question is, should Spock be a leader or a member of a team?

Methinks profundity is just another name for truth. We're so deluded that when, once in a blue moon, we do encounter truth, it feels as though it's not just truth, but something more! It's not truth simplicter, it's now a profound truth! Such is life!

:brow:

Unfortunately your emojis weren't that helpful! Feel free to elaborate! — Nickolasgaspar

:brow:

@Nickolasgaspar

Ok, ok! I'd like to ask two questions, my attempt to cut through the noise and get to the meat and potatoes of morality?

To minimize/eliminate possible sources of confusion, I'll use emojis.

Are :sad: :cry: good/bad?

Are :smile: :lol: :rofl: good/bad?

But you have had a hand in determining your preferences. You just haven’t been paying attention. — Possibility

Pfft! :grin:

How could you choose what one likes and dislikes? These are, as far as I can tell, formed way before one is even conscious about them. I, for example, didn't opt for heterosexuality, but, from what I can gather, I have. The same goes for homo/bisexuals. This proves my point to my satisfaction.

Thanks for bringing that to my notice. Stage 2 covers that phase of the choice-making process. Looks like it didn't quite satisfy your high standards of accuracy and truth. I've been accused of wooly thinking. So there.

an agent of the system — Agent Smith

:chin:

Hey, I can talk to myself on TPF! Très bien!

As long as physicalists can prove consciousness supervenes on matter & energy, I think they've made their case. Tomorrow is a Monday! :sad:

The universe was never designed to be a paradise. Ethics is, by and large, a pressing issue for what can suffer, the potential for pain immediately opens up a new dimesion to reality viz. ethics. How do we carve out a moral world, i.e. create jannat, from a universe that can also be converted into a jahanam?

Torture (for the heck of it) to Self-sacrifice (for...guess!)

These are the endpoints of the moral spectrum. The Bell Curve, if true for this continuum, would mean the majority would be ethically ambiguous, being neither fish nor fowl or, more accurately, a blend/mash-up of good & bad. Appreciate the complexity of human nature or pull out your hair in frustration for that very reason (people have done both).

Cluster bombs are, last I checked, banned. Does anyone know why?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. — unenlightened

:lol:

Onshore wind — unenlightened

:lol: Fart is cheap!

fertilisers — unenlightened

Yep, we have a lot of that (shit)! :grin:

invisible hand — unenlightened

:chin: You mean invisible man! Bang on!

Let's get down to the brass tacks, shall we? We know we have a problem (climate change), a huge one as a matter of fact. We know the aetiology ($CO_2$) as well! The solution, however, isn't as straight forward as we'd have hoped, oui? We're almost completely dependent on fossil fuel for our energy. So, the hard choice we've got to make: Freeze or Fry! :grin:

What if the climate hasn't changed, but our instruments and our bodies have?

So, the temperature could be actually a comfortable 25^o C but it feels like 45^o and mercury (the element, not the planet) has become more sensitive to temperature because of which it reads 45^o C instead of the real 25^o. The same goes for other living organisms and other thermosensitive substances.

Contaminated mercury could result in erroneous thermometer readings, oui? Conspiracy theory! :lol:

You raise some very interesting points I must say. I've made a note of them. However, they seem to be beside the point as far as I can tell.

Please bear in mind that there are two stages when it comes to making a choice:

Stage 1. Deliberation on the available options
Stage 2. Actually making a selection

It's an incontrovertible fact that in stage 1, we ponder upon all options and we imagine what each one leads to, as best as we can given what we know and what we don't. This is what I've termed virtual choice. For n options, we can make n virtual choices.

In stage 2, all the choices have been processed and the one that we like is selected. It's in this stage, our preferences come into play, preferences we had no hand in determining i.e. we're not free now.

You seem to be going beyond the necessity of any particular explanation by stating that the restriction suggested by Occam applies to all possible statements. — Paine

Not "all possible statements", just those on entities floated in order to explain phenomena.

This topic has been done to death. White lies are always an option, but the results are unpredictable and that, in a way, undermines the rationale of pious fictions.

Why not we discuss the mirror image of white lies, black truths - truths, yes, but spoken/written with malice aforethought?

Ok, let's not.

White lies are simply untruths intended to avert suffering or catastrophes. Religion, according to some thinkers, is a gennaion pseudos (noble lie). Can anyone forecast what the world would be like if people were to find out God didn't exist? For some, the only thing preventing a descent into moral depravity maybe the uncertainty of God's existence.

Moreover, even the worst of villains tend to be less malevolent when they're, even in the smallest way, religious - I'd rather be kidnapped by a person with a crucifix around his neck than one without. Given how delicate the matter is, it's better for anyone who has info that could settle the issue i.e. prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that god isn't real to keep mum about it.

Speech is silver, silence is golden. — Arabian proverb

Audi, Vide, Tace!

Ain't no fucking "royal we" here, alt-right snowflake. Just don't "celebrate" if you were soooo confused by the preceedings — 180 Proof

:lol:

Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men and boys. Masculinity can be understood as socially constructed, and there is also evidence that some behaviors considered masculine are influenced by both cultural factors and biological factors. To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate. It is distinct from the definition of the biological male sex, as anyone can exhibit masculine traits.

Although often ignored in discussions of masculinity, women can also express masculine traits and behaviors.  In Western culture, female masculinity has been codified into identities such as "tomboy" and "butch". — Wikipedia

That casts doubt on the womanliness of Justice Jackson. Black woman in SCOTUS.

Then there's the matter of Justice Jackson's race. Is race limited to the color of the skin or does it also include certain characteristic worldviews of a race/ethnicity/people? Is there anything black in the way Justice Jackson is going to tackle issues presented to her? Black woman in SCOTUS.

"Is recalcitrant" is a predicate: John is recalcitrant. No problemo!

"Is existent" isn't a predicate (Kant): The apple is existent. Problemo!

Kant's argument is that if existence is a predicate, an imagined object x would not be the same as that object (x) if it exists because it would have one additional property viz. existence that would preclude that equality. What this means is that an object I conceive of is no longer identical to that conceived of object existing. I can't, therefore, say of any imagined thing that it exists because they're now different. :chin:

problem of suffering (i.e. entropy). — 180 Proof

:up: Très bien!

Fun facts:

1. The Diamond Sutra (The Earliest Dated Book; 11 May 868).

2. The most printed book in history: The Bibila Sacra (5 billion copies).

3. The most translated author: Agatha Christie (1890 - 1976) aka the Duchess of Death.

Going by the above list of authors and topics, it appears that there's a mystery of a religious nature; in all likelihood a murder has been commited (Jeeeezuz!). Friends, Romans, countrymen, we have corpus delecti. Our task is to solve this case!

Can we?

:lol:

To some extent, yeah. To combat the theistic implications of the fine-tuning of the universe, some people have created literally infinite entities out of thin air (many worlds.) — theRiddler

I thought many worlds are a necessity in a particular way of looking at QM, one that differs from the so-called Copenhagen interpretation.