Our system is built on the illusion of pressure, control, and rush. — Martijn

Surely one can note the similarity of such even if one was suddenly hurled into any other physical world, one devoid of any other intelligent or equal being. You'd starve. That's the pressure, first mentally, soon physically. That's the control. And the rush.

Let's not pretend there's some sort of orchestrated plot or cabal of nefarious actors involved (or at least required per necessity) for the basic fundamental realities of the world we live in. Truth may hurt or at the very least be uncomfortable, but, you've yet to explain how food will be plopped into your mouth, drink on your lips, shade upon your head, and so on and so on for all the various needs and desires belonging to even the simplest of humans without some sort of inorganic and therefore fragile framework that requires constant effort and vigilance for it to exist in any shape or form.

As long as man exists, and expects something out of life. There will be a system to ensure, at least in his own mind, said something is most reasonably and efficiently reached. That is to say, that one day will be reasonably similar in positive expectation to the one that follows. We might use whatever word best fits to describe it, be it "philosophy", "religion", or simply "reality". But it's all the same in essence. Without stability, no man lives comfortably. And comfort, at least at face value, is proof of the "worthwhileness" of one's efforts. Sure, a robber may live his or her entire life in a state of wellness, but others may soon object to this. And if they grow in sufficient number, might spell an end to such livelihood. This is why society has progressed into what it is today.

Utopia looks good on paper. But effectively and in practice, doesn't seem to last for very long. But who knows. Perhaps you have the solution that has yet to be implemented. Surely you'd understand why many have their doubts.

Why on earth does anyone have a toilet located anywhere near where they clean themselves? — I like sushi

It's humbling. Pride causes war and is essentially the root cause of all human suffering, when you really think about it.

It's almost like you seem to be forgetting just how innovative and marvelous modern plumbing is. It wasn't that long ago, you had to wash yourself in a river. An unfortunate commonplace display even today. Right now. If you were dropped on a desert island, rich in every mineral imaginable to create modern infrastructure. Could you really reproduce it right then and there by yourself with no aide or alien (foreign) knowledge or assistance? I'd humbly rest in the position that you perhaps could not.

If you say both yes and no about the same subject you are contradicting yourself. — Janus

That. Or being polite about an interlocutor's ignorance and unrefined level of understanding about a topic in a way that won't offend fragile sensibilities.

ie. "Is the Grand Canyon just a big hole?" ... "Well, actually no, it's an amazing example of nature's beauty, power, and mastery that makes us all realize just how vast this world is and as a result the knowledge yet to be known, thus empowering each day with a sense of eternal motivation and wonder" ... "So. It's a hole, though. Right?" ... "Well, yes..." ... "And it's big?" ... "Of course." ... "So it's a big hole?" ... "Right, but that's not the..." .... "Anyway, it's just a big hole". (see both people are right, but how shall we say, one is more right than the other :smile: )

True. But men are more likely to engage in coercive control and stalking. Men are more likely to engage in sexual violence. — frank

While this is basically a fact of reality only a fool would dispute, one could, hypothetically, argue that "engaging" and "attempting" vs. being able to successfully fulfill said attempts fully and powerfully to the fullest degree of intent, are the true differences to distinguish.

I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to. — Jeremy Murray

Bruh. I mean, all that aside. Scientific fact states the human mind isn't done developing until the age of 25. Beyond that, actually. If children could be trusted to make lifelong decisions whose consequences would be with them until the day they die, the legal age of adulthood wouldn't be all the way up to age 18. People make mistakes when young. They're simply wrong. Often. That's why insurance rates go down after 25. Trust me, when it comes to this world and money, those types of people are never going to be wrong.

Unless you think children are much more equipped to make lifelong decisions and the age of legal adulthood and fornication with persons much older than them should be much lower? Do you? Please reveal yourself as such if so. And yes, a non-answer happens to be just as damning (or rather, the equivalent of one) in this particular corner you've painted, by the way.

I understand what you mean when you describe a sunset and how it makes you feel, but I'm also making a lot of assumptions to derive meaning from what you say — RogueAI

Is this sort of like when someone watching the same sunset next to you says it makes them feel "happy" and "at peace", despite the two concepts being universally known and recognizable, there may still be intricacies and subtleties that can vary greatly to the point of changing one's definition or idea of either quite significantly? For some, "at peace" may mean one feel's content in life and the world around them and thus fosters a strong urge to face tomorrow. For others, at peace" may mean one is comfortably resigned to the idea of one's own mortality and wouldn't mind (or perhaps even would wish) that particular day to be their last. Or something else altogether?

While few things are truly equal and relatable, what about say (and forgive me in advance for being unpleasantly or unnecessarily graphic, it's simply the most straightforward example that comes to mind) two people being burned alive? Surely there can't be much difference in what the two experience, at least in the physical and most prevalent sense? Sorry if that's a bit of a derail or shimmying from your point or line of argument altogether, I've just always been curious and frankly a bit fuzzy on the whole qualia/"is my red your red" debate and would appreciate your remarks if you have the time.

It is for society to work out how to protect trans women. — Malcolm Parry

Indeed it is. And in fact has been done long ago, irrespective of such terminology, condition, or circumstance. It's called The Law or "the Constitution". Perhaps you've heard of it? It doesn't matter what I am or think I am, if you harass me, that's a crime, and if I can document it, you'll be cited and you'll see your day in court. If you assault or batter me, you'll be arrested and thrown into a nice cage while you await your trial. And if you resist? Oh boy... don't get me started if you resist -- it doesn't take much "searching" to see that you will be shot by multiple police officers in defense of their life. No one will complain. A few people unfortunate enough to have been close to you may cry, then move on, while the rest of society cheers. That. My friend. Is how we protect the weak, vulnerable, or marginalized. By law, order, and if you choose to rebel, a volley and barrage of bullets. That's... literally all that is humanly possible to perform. I mean, seriously, if you violently resist a law enforcement officer, odds are you will be shot to death. Killed. Do you understand how permanent and effective that is for mortal beings? What more could possible be done as far as protecting the good/innocent/vulnerable from the bad/guilty/criminal offender? Can you really think of anything? Death is the end. And that's what people who commit crimes against ANY citizen risks. There's really nothing else that can be done. That's the highest order of protection available. There's simply nothing else further that exists in fiction or non-fiction alike. I mean, short of some magical barrier that deflects bullets (and insults) around one's person... and I wouldn't hold out for that. Not in this world, no.

unisex toilets — Michael

What would your response be to women and parents of young women who object to the idea of a male (biological or not who otherwise possesses a male sex organ) regularly being a few inches away from said woman or young woman while their pants are down (ie. vulnerable)? Surely you're aware most rapes are performed by individuals with penises. So it's natural to want to separate the two. At least in places people don't "choose" (per se) to be at or utilize per necessary human function and existence (ie. the restroom). You can live 1,000 lifetimes fulfilled without ever having to pick up a basketball or a tennis racket or a weight set. The same is not true of having to use the restroom. If you don't use the restroom, your organs would rupture and you'd literally die (you'd likely involuntarily relieve yourself long before then, but that's not the point). That reason alone is enough to separate the two into distinct lines of thought and discussion that should exclude using "restrooms" and "sports teams" in the same sentence, as if they were somehow equal in requirement to human life.

Moreover, as far as prisons, do you think "identifying as a female" by one's own statement is enough or does one have to have physically undergone surgery or otherwise have been diagnosed by a medical professional (ie. isn't just inaccurately self-diagnosing and therefore increasing/belittling the plight of truly and accurately medically diagnosed individuals -- like If I just happened to feel odd one day and say "oh i have cancer" and start taking up all cancer wards and equipment available for no reason when I don't really need it leaving those who actually do without recourse, of course not, that would be absurd, any doctor who permitted that ruse to go on would irrevocably lose his license)? I mean, honestly, at least when I was younger and I got into a small legal affair, I was thinking, "Damn, so if I just say I'm a chick they'll put me in a women's prison? I mean shoot... sign me up and call me Sally." :lol:

Beyond that, do you think a biological female identifying as male (presumably possessing the "organs", or perhaps not, actually especially not) wouldn't be singled out in prison anymore so than anyone else? To the point of it being cruel and unusual punishment? What about the opposite where a biological male identifying as a woman (perhaps not possessing the organs) ends up impregnating female inmates if placed in a woman's prison? (It's likely a fair few miss "male companionship", shall we say, or are otherwise aware that being pregnant in prison entails certain rights and privileges, codified as well as de facto, and might consider such to be in their best interest for the longevity of their stay?)

The real question is: are people who claim to be something, especially young people, actually that something just because either A.) they've convinced themselves they are B.) others have convinced them they are [particularly authority figures who may not have the best interest of another life's future best interest in mind, despite being a parent or legal guardian of said person] C.) everyone says they are,

I'm sure most people like to believe they're good people. That number may fluctuate if a ruling government authority declares goodness to be the necessity for not being executed, for example. Or, in lighter terms, if it just becomes the "cool" and "trendy" thing to do or be.

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"? As far as the question of: "Do advertisements work or are near trillions of dollars a year and unfathomable levels of resource both intellectual and physical being wasted?"

It's not always as simple as "Oh look a nose hair trimmer for $10. Honey, it's been years since we replaced our old one. Let's order now!" It's often a tangential concept, need, or desire that is aroused, reminded, or otherwise placed in one's head as the result of an advertisement. You might see an advertisement for Pizza Hut, feel hungry, and end up going to a Subway or an Applebee's instead, for example. Or, you might see an ad for a pet supply company, end up missing your deceased dog and go out and buy a cat or a tank full of fish. Or perhaps even be angered at the fact your dog perished at the hand's of a neighbors dog and go out and buy a gun or hire a fencing company. Or something. Point being, most all advertisements invoke a sense of primal necessity (food, drink, shelter) or desire (love, companionship, convenience, etc.). More so than not. And these things are what drive just about every action man has ever committed or performed.

While I await your answer I will refer you to (or rather introduce into the general debate) another more concrete, actually legally codified set of examples for your consideration. Police entrapment laws. I.E. an undercover detective outside a "bait house" (run down, broken window but actually covertly monitored and set up for the illusion) who comes up to you and is like, "Hey man, these guys have been out of town for weeks, they got all kinds of jewelry in there. I need a car to unload it all, and we'll split 50/50. Meet me here tomorrow at 8." ... or something more realistic... what's the classic example... asking a person who doesn't buy drugs to buy drugs for say three times the value, knowing they need the money, then arresting them as a result, where the otherwise non-criminal who if the person did not use their free speech to entice them to perform an illegal act would otherwise have not.

So riddle me that. If people can't be coerced into doing things they otherwise wouldn't by free speech alone, why is police entrapment against the law in all 50 states? Just another needless ordinance, I suppose? Speaking of entrapment. Gotcha. :wink:

That's fine if you're "Mr. All That", of his own mind and will, unbreakable all time eternal. But not everybody is. Some people are less intelligent (perhaps more susceptible?), some people have moderate to severe disabilities that result in much of the same, some are just young, naive, and inexperienced, some people are just struggling from drug and alcohol addiction and have weaker wills as a result. While I'm sure your response will be along the lines of "well that's their fault" or "that's not my problem", your particular view and circumstance does not dictate the will of society. We look out for those who are otherwise unable or at a lessened capacity to do so themselves. If that's not an important concept for you, that's fine. But if that be the case you ought know your place as a social outlier and eternal subordinate to the greater will of human compassion.

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish. — NOS4A2

See, now this is a fair counter-argument or reasonable challenge in support of your point. More or less. Most would find it hard to even fathom an example of such actions described occurring.

But here's one (and while it's not a clear-cut, open and shut "see you're wrong" example, it's certainly relevant and shows that we can be influenced to do things in even the subtlest of ways): Advertising is one of the largest if not the largest industries in the world due to several factors including: the "mere-exposure effect", "illusory truth effect", thought-action correlation or "thought action fusion". Now this in and of itself is more forming the grounds for an argument as opposed to an argument itself. But answer me this honestly after reading the fact below:

"Globally, advertising spending is estimated to have reached around $917 billion in 2024, with a projected rise to $1.17 trillion by 2028. In the United States, total ad spending is estimated to be $389.49 billion for 2025."

Do you really think some of the most educated people in the world with hundreds of think tanks, scientists, studies, financial experts, psychologists, and so many others are really just wasting all that time and money? Really? These are people much smarter than you or I (or at least with advisors who are) and as a result much more efficient and likely much more greedy. To me, as well as to most rational people, that would be doubtful. In short, they know a thing or two when it comes to money and what works and what doesn't.

See, now the burden of proof is on you. How do you respond? :grin:

Where do you get that from what I wrote? Odd. — NOS4A2

Eh, perhaps that was a bit of a reach on my part. But nonetheless, simply because "[one's] word against [yours]" happens to stand and seems to be of utmost permanence, or at least, prominence, is unique to your specific situation. What if your word (reputation) is no longer of such standing, does that change anything as far as the nature of truth and accuracy of either you or the other party's claim? It shouldn't. Yet, it does. That's the point I believed you to have overlooked.

Basically saying "well it's my word against yours and I don't think people would believe you", even if true in most situations, isn't really grounds for any sort of factual basis now is it (Edit: At least, not in and of itself)? :chin:

I’m sure you could come up with some terrible stuff and wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep. But it’s your word against mine, and I don’t think you’d be that convincing. — NOS4A2

So, you're simply unable to imagine any sort of reality or situation where all of a sudden you're not in the position you have become accustomed to? Not even a little bit? No empathy or ability to sympathize with other people who aren't like yourself? Mate... that's not just illogical. It's inhuman.

First of all, you should always trust your own instinct and accept the consequences of your own actions. — Martijn

See, the thing is, I can tell you're smart. Well-educated. And I'd argue you should be grateful for such good fortune. Likely a combination of caring people, a well-led society, and (perhaps above all, the all encompassing fact that you have) fortunate circumstances. Not everyone has that. So what is for you a simple almost brainlessly obvious act of "trusting one's own instinct" is for another person blindly following the lowest level of primal impulse. You must realize that and the disconnect between the haves and the have-nots, per se. To put it in common terms.

As far as the consequences of one's actions, that is generally true. However, if a stoplight is supposed to be red but fails to turn red and remains green and I continue driving, that's not something that can be placed on the individual. That, at least the concept of such, is my point.

Would you really blindly walk a potentially dangerous path, just because a stranger told you it was safe? — Martijn

Again, it's all about context. In the given example, one simply doesn't have a choice but to keep walking at such a point. So it's not a simple matter of "oh should I do this", it's quite literally: "Option A" or Option B." More with the context, he's not a stranger in this situation, I mean, he is, but he's from what any rational person would consider as "qualified" being a local resident. Sure, perhaps he could be lying. But if he seems to be hanging out in a relatively isolated area with all the creature comforts (perhaps literally at his house) then yes, one would assume he is qualified to give knowledge as he would reasonably know what is around, what's dangerous, and what isn't. Sure, it's not a great example as far as legally damning actions or statements that a court would pursue as manslaughter culpable negligence, but it touches on a fundamental point and the very concepts, events, and actions that are.

Second, in your example regarding cooperation, this has to be a matter of trust. Any profession or task that requires a team to complete succesfully requires some level of trust and interdependence. If we would only sabotage each other, or get each other killed for no reason, the human species would not have survived for long. Cooperation is written in us genetically. — Martijn

All of that's fine, but nowhere in the above snippet I quoted is there anything that suggests his use of free speech that resulted in a death was anything but criminal, and should be and remain criminal in any land, time, realm, or culture.

And third, there should be obvious exceptions — Martijn

Exactly. That's all I was trying to make you realize or admit: that no rational person is an absolutist as far as free speech.

I care about autonomy and freedom more than about being 'nice' or 'safe'. — Martijn

Do you not think that something that is wholly and fundamentally "unsafe" (dangerous to the very people who proliferate, support, defend, or otherwise live under it) is not a threat to its own existence?

I get the point you can't legislate morality or make people be nice to one another. That's unrealistic. But if something is fundamentally dangerous, isn't that a threat to itself? People voluntarily live in, support, and defend a society (often at slight expense of one's true, unrefined free will and desire) because it provides something a "free-for-all wasteland" does not: consistency. A reasonable expectation of what to expect and not to expect from one day to the next.

At the end of the day, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have, as authoritarianism and other evils can only begin to rise when we give up this crucial freedom. — Martijn

Again, for the most part I agree. Most all people, average, intelligent, decent, whatever they may be plan things and expect laws that accommodate themselves. It's the very small few who are either so deviously crafty, immoral, or whatever your choice of terms are, that can exploit things in ways the average person would never imagine. So, yeah, spot on.

(P.S.: I notice you're somewhat new here so just wanted to make it a point to inform you I'm not against anything you say personally, just as this is an intellectual debate forum, it's fairly standard to have one's views and opinions scrutinized as if the other's life depended on it. I don't like claiming to be "playing devil's advocate" as that might create the idea in one's mind I'm not genuinely wishing to express my arguments and hear your counter-arguments in return. Which I certainly am. :smile: )

Sure. But riddle me this. Say people doing a dangerous job in a dangerous environment say with electricity are communicating to one another. "Is the voltage on?" "No" (when he either knowingly is aware it is or is otherwise unaware) sends an innocent family man to his death. That is, in most all legal systems, punishable in some way. So the same thing can apply to more casual and common situations. "Is that path safe?" asks a traveler new to an area. "Sure" says a resident who doesn't like unfamiliar people when the person knows it to be quite dangerous. These things count and actual real laws that respect this are in place, for very good reason. It's nice you've never been a victim or known someone you care about who has been a victim of a fatal lie, but you should be fully aware that makes your view one of conditional and circumstantial ignorance rather than one of true human liberty, one I have no doubt you would reverse if such things were to become true.

Another, common problem, is that some people, especially the most loud, annoying, and unintelligent, actually have no desire to speak or communicate anything, simply to disrupt for the sake of disruption. If I just enter a library or school or emergency city council meeting regarding an important social issue with real lives and livelihoods at stake and just start screaming "AHHHHHH, I FEEL GOOD!" over and over at the top of my lungs disrupting a public institution or service, I would likely be removed, and for good reason. It's just an annoying paradox that the people who talk the loudest and the most actually have the least valuable of things to contribute, which does weigh down an entire society. Which is fine, if that's allowed. But any rational person would agree there are situations where saying the wrong things could result in death or dismemberment that should be avoided.

What about, say, a grown man entering an elementary school or hanging out by the fence at the playground during recess and reciting graphic descriptions of his genitals (or something like that)? Is that what you'd shed your blood to protect? Really now, actually. Not just in the context of a random reply online, I mean, truly, putting yourself and all that you value on the line. Is it really?

However, the legal or moral repercussions should be based on actions (and evidence), not on words. — Martijn

As they are in the above examples. The man electrocuted because his buddy decided to speak a lie (or ignorant statement) as opposed to the (verifiable) truth. The innocent traveler led towards a wild oblivion to be killed or stranded because the local resident had no human decency or respect for human life. The person shutting down a taxpayer funded city council meeting because he just wanted to yell and perhaps was politically or personally motivated and actually had nothing he truly desired to communicate. The man traumatizing a group of school children because he "has a right to." All these things happen and cause real detriment and discourse in society. Do you not acknowledge that and remain unaware or do you simply not care? That is to say, do you believe that is the lesser of the two evils?

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say. — NOS4A2

Some lies are criminal ie. slander, defamation, inciting a riot. If I point at you and say "he stole my wallet" or "he just touched me/my child" and you get hurt or killed, that's an example of blood libel where I would be liable to be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if you can defend yourself because in some contexts and scenarios you will be outnumbered and no amount of truth or innocence will save you from a bloody end, hence, the minority's plight (specifically if animosity and bias exists against you or your group already).

So first off this is just a beautiful post. For me personally, it's the genuine nature of it as if we were having an in-person conversation coupled with the almost fatherly level of insight.

The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. — Tzeentch

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature?

If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all. — Tzeentch

Take safety for example. As a shopkeeper, I don't have to ensure there's a wet floor sign present after an employee has recently mopped the floor leaving it ready for an unsuspecting person to slip and fall. Now, in most countries this would open myself up to lawsuits so of course I would act to avoid such possibility. But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. Not a great point or angle but expanding some, many places do have laws that somewhat "force people to do the right thing" not for "rightness" sake but because without it, problems would occur, be they financial, emotional, moral, etc. This is probably a bit aside from your point but, sure you can't force someone who is wealthy who walks by a beggar who would, for all you know, might possibly die if you don't give him a bit of your change, change that as a wealthy man is beyond superfluous. But, we have social... shall we say "laws that aren't laws" norms, which would encourage you to do so. Perhaps a less fortunate person who witnesses you walk by without even a passing glance and verbally condemning you as "cheap" or "heartless". It's not that serious, but it does exist. And many people do abide. No one's forced, per se, at the barrel of a gun or end of a sword, but in a way, it's certainly coerced in some sense, is it not? :smile:

Peter Singer famously argues for infanticide up to a certain point. He claims that: "human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Famously?" No wonder I've never heard of the guy. The underlined random assertion simply doesn't logically follow the preceding factual statement. It doesn't even seem to attempt to. So, at least for me, it doesn't ever actually reach the threshold of what constitutes "an argument". Basically, there is no "therefore" as the logic falls apart at that point so anything that comes after and is based on that non-logical assertion is akin to opinionated rambling. Yet, you seem to entertain it, which suggests perhaps I'm simply missing something. A baby does in fact have the status of personhood, legally, and socially. It's a baby person. Any disagreement of that is like saying a different ethnicity of humanity isn't a person because "I say so", at least to me. It's just another opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm reminded of an argument @Hanover once made, saying an unconscious or sleeping person is still a person, and their rights don't suddenly vanish. That was a response to some argument about mental invalids or some other business he responded to. Maybe it was an abortion debate. That was probably it. Just seems relevant to me. Basically stating just because, at a particular time (be it a newborn or a sleeping adult) that human being is not processing, communicating, and interacting with the world, doesn't mean they're not (or all of a sudden no longer) a human being. So, by that premise, to accept this man's claim is to also accept the claim that killing an entire city of people who happen to be asleep at the time of their death is technically not killing anyone. Which is comically absurd.

Seems like a fair counterargument to me, at least. Albeit likening the development of a newborn into a child is not quite the same as an adult waking up from a state of sleep. Yet, there are notable parallels, I'm sure many would agree.

Personally, I think such an argument makes him out to be little more than just another Jonathon Swift wannabe. You can tell he's quite proud of it. :lol:

The intellectual version of a cookie-cutter shock jock. Can't be insightful? Be controversial. The average person today is, after all, intellectually, and to an extent (likely as a result), morally, low-hanging fruit. Cheap taste and short memories. Easy to control. Thankfully.

The young revolutionary is still in there, but he has to contend with the older person who realized that calling for a revolution is calling for a huge amount of suffering, which is diabolical. So now you have an internal conversation about justice and acceptance. — frank

Oh please. Don't sugarcoat the lowest form of thought as if it was something even possible to dress up as or purport as anything but exactly what it is: childish illusion and ignorance. "Everything isn't perfect so let's destroy everything that stands in our (my little) way until it is." Insolence. Myopia. Nothing more. That should be put down for the good of society as quickly as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side

(Ironically you are met with the prompt: "Wikipedia does not have an article on "the grass is always greener on the other side", but its sister project Wiktionary does." Which I refuse to believe is some sort of purposely-laid hint of rationale that the idea is not as sound as most would tend to believe...)

Does my complicated odyssey — jufa

What's complicated about it? Lots of people suffer, go through trials, have pain, misfortune, etc. In fact, that's pretty much par for the course.

What makes you so special? Could it perhaps be, ego ie. childish delusion? Sure, perhaps your existence, out of the billions and billions before you is somehow set apart, not in your own mind, but by pure fate. So what? What are you going to do with it? What do you want? Surely you don't expect others to bow to your whim and will because of such a possibility. Do you?

Is consciousness the same as awareness (or even awareness of one’s thoughts)? — kindred

"The same" as in can be used interchangeably in any case, context, or scenario? Clearly not.

I’m not sure I know exactly what consciousness is or what is happening to give rise to conscious experience. — kindred

Nobody is, apparently. :smirk:

Is there anything special about consciousness? I guess it separates us as life forms compared to plants which do not posses consciousness but are mostly stimuli driven … is consciousness just a more refined form of subject to stimuli-environmental interaction ? — kindred

Special? It must be, hence the millennia of debate on the matter. "Just a more refined form" seems to gloss over the -- basically infinite -- amount and level of depth that comes with the broad concept of form itself. Is the modern international mail and parcel delivery system "just a more refined form" of me handing you a piece of paper? Is the Grand Canyon just a big hole? I mean, sure, but one typically refrains from such comparisons likely owing to the fact such oversimplification is generally seen and thought of as a display of ignorance.

Specifically, I believe, the answer is generally considered "not quite". Take an advanced robot that can detect 1000 times your level of physical observable perception, every facet of any dust molecule for further than the human eye can see. It doesn't "know" things, it merely observes and responds as a result. Without going too far into the free will aspect, it's clearly a world of difference.

Is there much of a difference between awareness and consciousness or are these two things the same or closely related ? — kindred

"To be aware of something" ... how could you unpack this into words and a single agreed upon definition that fits every situation, every scenario, every case no matter how obscure and unlikely...

A plant is "aware" of threats to its environment and releases chemicals as a result, per se, depending on how generous you'd like to be as far as wordage and vernacular. So, I would say: [there is] probably [considerable difference].

A subset property of consciousness or awareness I suppose is “thinking” whether concrete, abstract or conceptual occurs in the stream of consciousness as conceptual steps to perhaps problem solving or types of creative processes, yet I cannot help but feel that thinking, consciousness and awareness are pretty much the same thing and that perhaps the distinction between them can overlap or be blurred.

From this perspective if we didn’t have consciousness then there would be no place for thinking to occur in and we’d merely be stimuli reacting automatons like plants. Yes we would function but at a very primitive level and our ability to communicate and invent would be non-existent … — kindred

"I think, therefore I am" comes to mind. To me a requirement for something to be considered conscious or intelligent is understanding of the passing of time. Past, present, future ie. "I woke up today, I am awake now, and, if alive, will inevitably be going to sleep later". The ability to store memories and knowledge and "access" said information is certainly a requirement. And yet, a computer can do the same, functionally, at least. But we wouldn't consider that "consciousness" as it's simply following a combination of programming and user commands.

Compare something generally thought of as non-intelligent yet having a nervous system and a brain, say, a fly. There are plenty bodily and organic systems relatively similar to those of human beings, but, do we really think a fly "makes decisions" or "ponders concepts" the way a mammalian brain does? Does a fish? Probably not!

Inventing is an interesting concept, yes. Beavers build lodges, squirrels hide away food for the winter, ants practice agriculture and slavery, surely they know what they're doing, at least in some sense. Or do they? They must, right?

Thoughts ? — kindred

Oh, offer us a penny first, at least. :grin:

What are thoughts, really? Often a response or handling of emotions or physical stimuli, especially things, situations, and circumstances that affect one's biological needs and personal desires. You feel hungry, "I'm hungry, I want a pizza". You're on a budget and your cell phone bill is due in a few days, "I really shouldn't order a large pizza, so maybe I'll just get a hotdog and some chips." You're single and the counter lady is attractive, "I'm going to ask her if she's single." She replies in the negative and it annoys you, "Dang it, every time!" So on and so forth. It's like, one's personal narrative or movie commentary going on every waking moment. Perhaps not the best example... others are welcome to provide a more accurate one.

Perhaps we might even be able to imagine animal experiences to some degree, although this seems like it would be far less accurate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Let's take the bat example. I find it difficult someone of your intellect would find it surmountable to create a video game (assuming you knew everything there is to know about "making video games") or rather, a simple few moments of imagination to form a thought experiment, where a player could "view the world" with echolocation. It's literally the only thing they have to avoid crashing into hard, possibly blunt or even sharp objects. Not that hard to visualize. Reminiscent of military/air sonar, isn't it?

My point is, it's not hard to dumb yourself down (though accurately and in relative ratio/correspondence does take a fair amount of intellect) enough to imagine. In fact, would you not say a fighter jet piloting a military jet using radar to see his targets and allies is, in many if not most ways, basically a similar experience to the bat? Think about it. Sure you have your own thoughts going on (mission objectives) but at the end of the day the little blips that give little information (other than if you crash into any of them you will likely die) ultimately guide your way?

We all have the same faculties or rather appendages, but the brain and development (or lack thereof) or other related systems either bolsters or hinders their "usefulness". The same dog that can't open a doorknob a 2-year-old could even if there was a pallet of dog food behind it to save it's life can sniff out a single bullet 100 yards away or the slightest residue of explosives under three layers of airtight seal thus saving the lives of possibly millions of people (in the right scenario). So, while some things aren't quite so hierarchical, there's certainly clearly defined descriptions or telegraphic, structured forms of experience. Certainly ones that humans can detect, describe, or at least talk about with some significant degree of accuracy.

Basically, that bat that just got done defecating in a cave isn't just sitting there pondering about the metaphysical ramifications of Plato's Cave or the ramifications of determinism vs. consequentialism, for example. There's much, much less going on in that little brain of its, I'd guarantee. Ergo, it's not hard to imagine the experience, perhaps with a bit of effort.

Perhaps we might even be able to imagine animal experiences to some degree, although this seems like it would be far less accurate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is most interesting to me. Why not? Do you think there is an animal that is somehow more advanced than say, the average person? Surely such a notion is ridiculous. Where are their cities? Their sciences? Their mastery of the environment and the atmosphere? The point being, as a higher being, the idea of some other (yet clearly lesser) being's "existence" as something "unfathomable", eh just doesn't convince me. If that makes sense? Sure, it's different. It takes understanding, some sort of "sensory empathy", if you will. But the idea of it being something just "indescribable" (in a technical sense, not a "provable" sense) seems to need a bit more evidence than just "oh you're not that fly that just mindlessly flew into a lamp so you'll forever live a life damned to miss out on what that was like". If that makes sense.

an actual experiencing person in a room who is practicing manipulating Chinese characters correctly for years and years but never learns what they mean. He can use the characters correctly and have conversations — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, what differentiates this from using say, random shouts or phrases or whistles (basically speech). To me this reads as "he can speak a different language and have conversations in that language but doesn't really know what he's saying." Kind of a mental cliff dive there for me. Can you explain more based on what you perceive to be my understanding?

Edit: So, basically like a kid randomly shining a flashlight outside his window and seeing a light flash in return. Every time he "flashes" (turns the light off and then on again) any number of times, the person shining a light back responds with the same number of flashes. That kind of deal. That defines a "conversation" in your original context?

knowledge of how linguistic statements interact, but none of the phenomenological whatness intended by them — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, this would mean, language is not primarily for utility. At least, it has another significant function. Whether by intent or not.

Sort of like how puns arise. I want a coffee. You sell coffee. I have enough money for a coffee. I ask for one. You serve me one to my hand and the bill at the same time. I say "ouch", perhaps as a reaction to the price of the coffee. A machine would assume this is a reaction to the temperature of the coffee. Or would it? Is this what you mean?

A common definition of knowledge is: "justified true belief." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Justified by who? One's self? One's social circle? One's town, village, or city? Anything greater than that is exclusively a modern phenomena, I'm sure you'd agree.

Is there a "justified false belief" that one would immediately be able to differentiate from a "justified true belief"? How so? What is the significance of the "true" multiplier/descriptor in the context of the overall phrase/other two words?

A belief? Naturally this is the most base, non-enveloping conceptual descriptor to describe such, sure. Would you have any objection if your use of the word "belief" in this context were to be substituted with, say: "opinion", "judgement", "desire", "preference", or "goal". Do you find any of these substitutes more or less fitting or some even outright more accurate or completely incompatible? If so, why?

For instance, a distinction between "knowing that" and "knowing how." Knowing how to ride a bike, for example, does not seem to reduce to propositional knowledge (at least not easily). Its justification is the ability to stay upright on a moving bike, which is not linguistic. It seems possible that someone who has lost their capacity to understand and produce language might nonetheless know the to ride a bike. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So, perhaps like the difference between an ability and a skill. One or the other being more or less easy, hard, if not next to or entirely impossible, by simply following written or verbal (or physical) instruction? Perhaps "talent" rising above both the two? What are your thoughts on that?

But I wanted to bring up another sort of knowledge: "knowing what it is like to be." We can consider here Nagel's example of "what it is like to be" a bat and to possess a faculty of echolocation. This might be impossible to know, but it is certainly something I think people would love to know. And if they could remember their time as a bat, we could say they "know what it is like" to have echolocation, and yet this seems to obviously be a sort of knowledge that is non-linguistic, and which doesn't seem to line up with "belief" either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does a man go out to his driveway and ask "Gee, I wonder what it's like to be a car?" Not likely. He turns the key, drives it, and more or less basically gets the idea. Especially if he has to maintain it. The reason I mention this example is because there are video games where you can be things you ordinarily can't: a millionaire, a gang leader, an animal, even a stray cat. Sure, it's not really, exactly the same. But surely any thinking person can "get the idea" at least in a substantial sense. Do you disagree? This reminds me of the classic "qualia" argument, how basically: "two people can watch the same sunset, we can describe it in a physical, optical sense in near identical terms, but neither person can really describe what it's 'like' or 'means' to ones self." Do you feel that to be of relevance or relation?

Loyalty, power dynamics and image outweigh strategy or principle. — Benkei

That moment you realize... all of that IS the strategy and principle... (Hey I don't agree with it, but you pander to your audience. Cheap seats fill faster. Am I wrong?)

anti-elitist — Benkei

So, basically anyone more educated, successful, or for that matter, happier (no not even happy, simply less miserable) than me (not even that, simply a functionally sane and civilized human being in times, places, or situations I simply cannot or will not) is basically/might as well be, the devil. Basically, there's never anything wrong with me, there's simply no logical room for any other case scenario than "that other guy way over there who isn't bothering me and happens to be doing better than me is terrible and is (somehow) at fault". Yeah, sounds about right for the unrefined. :lol:

Very dangerous mindset. Literally why cages were invented. So those whose minds experienced failure to launch don't drag an entire civilization or society down and cause it to disappear or worse.

Great stuff here, BTW. Just following from the rafters is all.

Let's open up the discussion a little bit, for the sake of viability.

How can one believe in a (more so than not) benevolent Higher Power, god, deity, or whatever you will, in a world mired with suffering, cruelty, hatred, and so on?

It's a question men of faith and even honest curiosity have struggled with for Millennia; ages even.

So, first and foremost is to understand the dynamic of which we're trying to discuss. We're talking about the supernatural, that which transcends anything we currently know and perhaps will ever be able to know, understand or experience in this existence. That's the key point to understand here many people fail to grasp. It's illogical, it is, by all observable and known science, irrational. This is where people fail to understand the true nature of an alleged god or divine higher power. When you begin to open up your mind to it, most folks often fall into the "oh so none of this matters, this is basically a simulation" trap and reverse mindset dynamic. This is common. You however seem to be stuck at the gates.

So, let me ask you. Do you believe you, as a person, have something either inside you or I don't know perhaps available to you, that separates you from say, the pigeon that eats out of your hand on a park bench? Beyond your body's physical, anatomical contents. The answer to this question will determine what line of discussion will best suit your needs.

I think she's fine. — fdrake

"Fine" is what you can be okay with calling an itchy souvenir T-shirt or poorly-made pair of swim trunks you had to purchase at an unknown gas station at the last minute because something happened to your original ones.

Politicians, people who make real policy that affects real people and who in fact have our lives and well-being hinged in the balance of their competency and intent need to be more than "fine." They need to be exemplary -- quite literally better men and women then you or I or any average citizen picked at random, otherwise what purpose do they hold?

Can you explicate a little the difference between 'assume' and 'imagine'? — unenlightened

Meant to imply a more 'context'-based reasoning and process of conclusion for a claim as opposed to just a "well I just always imagined it being like that" sort of assessment of a period in time we were absent in that is hundreds of thousands of years senior to our own, is all. I see it really did not however. Thanks. Good catch.

Your former kumbaya-like sarcasm aside, I so far don't find any reason to affirm that my initial assertion was not, generally speaking, spot on. Again, this from what I know regarding what is known at large. — javra

All of this is fine, I just want to make sure we're arguing for or against the same simple claim. That claim (of mine?) being:

Human rights violations (rape, theft, murder, etc.) occurred much more frequently and were of increased severity in earlier times before widespread civilization and modern society, typically affecting the most vulnerable persons or groups of people (in this case, women being part of that category -- whether or not this "vulnerability" is intrinsic and biological or simply a result of the society and its social norms at the time notwithstanding).
--
I'm fairly certain that's correct and the sentiment of "oh it probably wasn't really that bad" just kind of sticks out as non-factual to me. It doesn't to you? Not even a little?

I get what your saying, civility, social cohesion, and "social norms" are not brand spanking new things exclusive to the modern era, per se. But, I would still question your assumption that -- just as even today domestic abuse is rampant, results in serious injury, and even murder, despite us living in a society and world those before us could never even imagine with essentially 90% of the hardships those before us faced now being effectively non-existent -- it wasn't much worse back then and more prevalent (if that is what you imply, which to me seems to be so).

I mean, it's 2025 and in some places in the world, women are having their sexual organs and breasts mutilated/flattened/etc. right now as you read this (by their own families per social custom, not criminals for torture/dehumaniztion/etc.). So that points out even today there's a (presumably lowered/negative) social stigma toward women, so imagine back then. Plus there's always some news article about a gang rape or something if you pay attention to global/int'l news long enough. And that's today. I just don't see how one can rationally assume it wasn't much worse back then, particularly way back then in societies that didn't have law enforcement, standardized education, or basically any sort of social service or humane form of justice let alone any intricate, codified system of laws.

Any particular reason you hold to presume things were any different prior to written history commencing? — javra

Well, for starters. nature itself as can be witnessed today is a pretty brutal if not outright savage environment. One could assume, if we slowly became set apart from this environment, and were once immersed in it knowing nothing but the sort, for how could our lesser evolved predecessors possibly have, things were quite, as they say, savage. Makes sense, no?

The caveman with club in hand knocking over the dame on the head so as to take her back to his cave ... its one of those stories that is more a reflection of the tellers than it is of what actually occurred in prehistoric times. — javra

Really? I mean. Okay. Based on what information? Were you there or something? :lol:

I like your posts but this one is just off the rails, mate. I get we like to imagine the world, past included, as some "better place" crafted in our own benevolent image, but, yeah, where are you getting this information from? Perhaps you simply forgot and omitted the oh-so-forgettable "I imagine" preface in front of your ideal description of the world.

sitting at a desk pools the blood. — DifferentiatingEgg

More Stone Age babble.

Get with the times mate.

What are you in the Stone Age? Right Click (on you desktop) > New > Text Document.

I'm curious, what books? — hypericin

I wouldn't say it's quite out of the realm of possibility javi was merely entranced by words and stories that were, shall we say, a tad less than factual. You'd be surprised how mundane and simple the things are for some to get entertainment from (ie. claiming to be someone else in order to gauge a reaction. philosophers are natural psychologists, though not necessarily ones beneficial to the well-being of humanity..).

If we're going to be so lackluster-ly broad and generic, I suppose the only real response would be: "that you might be wrong."

Would you care to quote specific entries or summaries of entries so one can determine what exactly you're interpreting (or perhaps, if such a thing is possible, misinterpreting) and how it may or may not be relevant to the higher idea or body itself?

If it's a danger to the public, it should be squashed. — frank

What is "the public"? Just, random people and whoever happens to be around? A given municipality or country? The whole world and everyone living in it? That's complicated because countries with miilitarys are by definition a danger to "some public" or at least are liable to be. Maybe not here, but somewhere. Do we just arbitrarily imagine "as long as more than half the 'public' (still not defined) is benefited or harmed by a certain action or inaction " we can determine that a threat. Just because something short-term seems to or even actually does put someone in danger, doesn't mean it's occurrence doesn't prevent a much worse outcome. Like medication that has side effects, for example. If you look at it from a "oh this is a danger, you're hurting me" view because the medication that prevents a fatal infection might make you a little dizzy, tired, or nauseous, at the cost of saving your life, that's an easy point of contention or confusion. Sure we like to think we know all there is to know, but I'm sure you'll agree that kind of attitude and way of thinking has historically led to the start of tremendous amounts of wholesale human suffering. We don't (generally) do things for any other reason than we happened to have thought them to have been the best or wisest most productive or perhaps moral choice at the time. That doesn't mean the opposite is never true or rather never occurs despite our belief and best efforts otherwise.

Authoritarians and such like to use these "obvious truths" that naturally no one would object to, but in reality they can mean vastly different things from what the observer hears and believes to what the actual intent is. See, like that. Obviously, that last statement is true.

Should information warfare be regulated? — petrichor

The problem is people are mostly ignorant, having all they have due to unscrupulous reasons that fly in the face of the society and values they claim to represent all of a sudden. If you live truthfully, what could anyone say to disrupt or take anything from you short of a genuine lie or slander such as "Bob stole my cat". Okay. Where is the cat? But why would I go through the hassle of troubling Bob and violating his rights to search for said cat just because one person out of 8 billion made a claim? It's complicated, it really is.

But that said, just because a person is more educated than you and is successfully convincing (or you deem said person as a threat who will be able to convince) others of something that might result in some sort of monetary or "social" loss (especially one involving something one knows is fraudulent, immoral, or dangerous) doesn't change the act of telling the truth into "information warfare", nor does it criminalize the pursuit and proliferation of wisdom. That's absurd. True authoritarianism. Yet a fact of this world, historically, and perhaps even today, granted. As any philosopher can wholly attest to.

Sure, the moral consequence of being able to yell fire in a theater, for example, is a point of contention. Other examples, say telling a man to cross a bridge you know is dilapidated and will likely result in an injury, or perhaps telling someone who you know has a peanut allergy no such allergen is contained in something when it is, etc. I understand your point is beyond the simple legality of lying to someone, compounded with the "thought that counts" type of philosophy (consequentialism?) that basically would consider someone or something "immoral" if they truly believe what they did or said was the best course of action that in reality was dangerous or foolish and results in the death or injury of anyone who listened or was impacted. More of an intentional, widespread politically motivated operation that has a clear stated goal to "disinform" mass amounts of people (whatever that means)? Disinform from what? That fire is cold and water is hot? Just, silly things to cause random and isolated bubbles of confusion? No, of course not. It would be to chip away at the public opinion on a given leader or society for the specific purpose of causing social unrest, injury, or perhaps some sort of political/governmental change that benefits the person responsible.

I mean, let's be practical. What are some examples? Saying an elected leader is bad? Okay. Can they show evidence? If they can, wouldn't it be of benefit to truth itself and yes the person for them to know? Or saying Country A is bad, corrupt, and a threat to your home and house to sway voters (or soldiers) to take up arms to fight against Country A, whether or not any of those assumptions, claims, and insinuations are true?

It's like religion, somewhat. Or no, let's keep it simple. Let's say "proper food safety guidelines", specifically ensuring hamburgers reach an internal temperature of 165 degrees. The reasoning being it keeps people safe and thus is something not only positive but in this context vital to society, for obvious reasons. I don't think if I eat a hamburger that falls short of the guideline by a single degree and is only 164 degrees I'm going to be hospitalized or die, that's a bit silly. An opponent would logically be able to call "proper food safety guidelines", specifically the 165 degree requirement as misinformation, by pure logical fact, would he not? That doesn't mean said guidelines are not truthful and beneficial if not vital to human beings. There's wiggle room, assuredly.

The core of your question seems to be involved with, at least in some way, determining the intent of an action and declaring it as an organized, hostile political agenda simply because it "looks that way" or otherwise has a similar effect that someone who would do so to intentionally cause unrest or political difficulty or at an extreme a risk to national integrity itself, would do. Basically, if "the goals appear to line up" in an action or series of actions, whether or not there may have been any goals at all. At least, nothing you're aligned with or value as significant or important. Example: I just like chaos and loud noise so I tell everyone something that makes them act that way, nor caring any less about politics or life itself (including my own). That, to my knowledge, while it certainly makes one a less-than-noble person, is perfectly legal. I believe? But should it be, I suppose is your question?

What is a drug, in practical terms, for the purpose of its scheduling in a federal agency, such as the FDA? — Arcane Sandwich

Something that if allowed unfettered access to the average person or child may reasonably result in serious injury, death, or worse, annoyance to those of higher moral value or at minimum, greater intellect.

Kidding. Mostly. Glad to be here.

How can one ensure this is not simply another meta-philosophy topic that is best and greater encumbered by a simple "The ethics of self control vs. indulgence" type of discussion.

Why go the speed limit when I can go 10 miles over?

Why be a good person when others who clearly are not seem to not only walk around with impunity impeded, but on many an occasion succeed and live better lives?

Why do anything one doesn't have to? And to top that, why must one do anything?

So many greater, and again, mostly if not all encompassing avenues and schools of thought come to mind. So, make your case. What differentiates doing/using/willingly becoming under the influence of "drugs" (which you've yet to define, I might add) from any of the aforementioned (and ongoing) philosophical debates?

I could just as easily have used 'we'. You can stop projecting now. — Tzeentch

That's fair but it makes it seem to a person in the heat of debate that you're implying there's some "better" almost "intrinsic" "way of life" you seemingly have been blessed to be under, some deep unyielding freedom that is exclusive to you and only you and those reading should seek to understand or become knowledgeable of.

You can't just pass off these real and valid concerns by using recently-cheapened and now "buzz words" of psychological flavor as if it elevates you above the underlying logic just because it has that affect on the average person. You are not an average person, I can tell, and this is not an average place. Therefore, my sentiment and corresponding concern were both wholly appropriate.