think that animals such as squirrels and elephants are happier than most humans. Because they do not need to worry about jobs or rent or friends or close minded parents or racism or self esteem etc
They have very simple needs, so long as their stomach is full of either nuts or grass they're happy.
Animals mainly experience either happiness or pain but not sadness when an event is over they move on. I specifically chose squirrels and elephants because they live better lives compared to other animals such as cows that get slaughtered or lions that may go hungry for days.
My estimation of the world is that only half the people that live in it are possibly happy, the rest struggle with poverty, hunger inequality and unrealised dreams.
Everything from being bullied in school to being socially rejected to hating your boss to not being able to pay rent to expensive dental bills.
In short unless your a millionaire or one of the lucky few happy with your life, you'd be much happier as a squirrel or elephant. — Gitonga
I find the fact that life is a self-organised, decreasingly entropic, complex structured system of equilibrium that regulates and perpetuates itself in an otherwise chaotic world.
On a celestial scale things are winding down, dispersing, cooling and ultimately leading in a very definitive direction - heat death. Things are becoming more disorganised and random and spread out. But life goes completely against that. It wants to be/ or has to be extremely organised and self-manipulating with the goal if reproducing the same system continuously to defy death.
I think the most remarkable change in the creation of life was the way chaotic conditions could (with the help of gravity) form incredibly consistent and diverse cycles -organised, repeating states of predictability and balance for which life would emerge; tectonic convection cycles, magnetism, orbits, day and night, seasons, precession and therefore ice ages, tides, annual temperature fluctuations and thus ocean currents, weather patterns, the water cycle. The list is endless.
Why is life so different. What does the living mean in terms of the function of the fundamental laws of nature, and why dies negative entropy occur to such a massive extent in a chaotic universe. Is gravity the opposite of entropy? A negatively entropic force combining and condensing things? — Benj96
I know this is an old argument that has been with us for 1000s of years. Most memorably, St Thomas Aquinas recounted it as his 2nd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. But I feel it is worth revisiting - it is almost certainly correct.
Infinite regresses come up when discussing the origin of the universe in terms of cause and effect - chains of cause and effect stretch backwards in time (a cause causes an effect and the effect in turn causes another effect and so on), the question is do these chains of cause and effect stretch back forever or is there an initial first cause?
If the chains of cause and effect stretch back forever, then there cannot be a first cause. The first cause would cause the 2nd cause - without the first cause, the second cause cannot be. Likewise, the nth cause would cause the nth+1 cause, so by mathematical induction, causality cannot exist at all if there is no first cause. But causality does exist, so there must be a first cause.
Illustrating this proof with an example from pool: The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in the pocket if the cue did not hit the white? No - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and found that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress cannot exist - infinite regresses are impossible.
Obviously this argument makes the assumption that the law of cause and effect holds universally. Causality is best explained as matter interacting with matter - either by collision or gravitational interaction. Newton's third law of motion is that whenever two objects interact, they exert equal and opposite forces on each other - this law governs causality (for matter collisions). The other main law governing causality is Newton’s second law - the mass of bodies causes a force on other bodies remotely via the force of gravity. So the often mentioned claim that causality is somehow an unscientific concept does not seem justifiable.
We also live our lives according to the law of cause and effect - so we have all consciously or sub-consciously accepted the axiom of causality.
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused. Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99
Is socialism the answer?
We have never had a true socialist system with a flat demographic pyramid so we have nothing to compare.
We do know that all societies are hierarchal and they are showing that socialism, whatever that is, is not what they want.
You might look at the happiness stats and recognize that the Northern European democracies have blende democracy with social programs in ways that have increased the happiness factor.
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop
You insult me all the time. We both read the Bible and claim to adhere to Jesus's teachings.
I insult you for your morals as you are following the Rome created Jesus.
I follow Jesus' more esoteric/shamanic ways.
Your way slaves you to religion while my way frees us from it.
Keep following a genocidal god if you like, but do not expect moral people to respect you for holding such a position.
Do you respect the old German S S's thinking?
You are thinking the same way if you idolize Yahweh.
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop
I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.
I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.
This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.
I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself. — JacobPhilosophy
Frankly i think you're jumping the gun slightly, we are looking for evidence of consciousness which we can witness in animals / humans. We cannot measure consciousness in plants and fungi or other objects. Plants / fungi and objects (i.e. inorganic matter) also do not contain nerve cells (i.e Neurons) or a brain.
So what i am stating is that without a cell that is electrically excitable without the ability to connect with other cells via specialised connections called synapses. There is no way of passing sensory information to the brain which itself is made up specialised neurons which pass information to one another forming complex net (branches) creating neural activity (i.e consciousness).
So when looking at particle collisions since electricity is present (i.e. voltage gradients across cell membranes) we there must be an ordered flow of electrons formed in biochemical reactions from nerve cell to nerve cell.
This can be found in an electrical cable but a cable does not have ability to collect external stimuli or a brain to process stimuli.
The unique thing about sensory neurons is the ability to detect stimuli. Human senses such as touch, taste, hearing stem from this interaction of sensory neurons which make up the nervous system.
Therefore consciousness cannot be created through the structural arrangement of particles found in objects but only in specialised biological systems which can detect external stimuli & transfer them to a central hub, the brain which processes the stimuli & generates consciousness. — AZAM KHORASANI
Talk to your Christian friends and ask them to do the same for gays and women. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
He says we dominated the planet due to legal fictions such as money and fictions such as human rights and religion.
There is some truth to that, but you forget that the religious fictions that Christianity used, where backed up by inquisitionsd and murder to grow Christianity as the did not have decent moral arguments to convert with.
You forget what made Christianity the size it is. Murder and lies.
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop
If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate).
I don't entirely believe that fate determines our actions, simply because it is said that we have the ability to choose and to make choices. I agree that we may not always be conscious or aware of what we are doing at any given time, for example if I move my foot without realizing it or thinking about it, but very often we are forced to become aware of our actions, such as when making decisions or performing very specific tasks. Moreover, it is primarily in cases of decision-making that we become the most self-aware and have a conscious ability to choose, even in spite of of actions that we don't think about but that we are taking subconsciously outside of the decision-making process. But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. For instance a person doesn't choose to do something without being aware that they are making a choice, or what the choice is.
I also don't believe that so many decisions would be stressful or difficult to make if we actually knew in hindsight that the decision was determined by fate, so the fact that we still have to make decisions and often don't know what to decide is another indication that the decision is not predetermined. But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make. — BBQueue
The point I’m making is that that “...” is an important difference.
0.111 does not equal 1/9. It’s close, and you’re saying it might be close enough for some purposes, but for others you might need more 1s. But so long as you have finitely many 1s, it won’t equal exactly 1/9.
But 0.111... (with that “...”, that’s very important) equals EXACTLY 1/9, by definition. It has infinitely many 1s. That’s what the “...” means: “keep repeating the preceding pattern forever.”
0.111 x 9 = 0.999, which is not 1.
0.111... x 9 = 1/9 x 9 = 0.999... = 1, exactly. — Pfhorrest
I have an almost indisputable explanation regarding God and how He (or rather the idea of Him) came to be. It is a known fact that the first people to define or describe the presence of a God were those who were looking for an explanation for unexplained things that happen such as natural disasters or deaths before there was knowledge of disease or bacteria, or even good things such as rain after a long drought. So they ultimately decided that these things were being caused by a celestial being that they decided existed and was causing anything that could not be explained. This is believed to be the foundation of the first so-called religion, and things just took off from there. It makes sense when you consider in those times that people likely suffered a great deal of hardships and losses when people got sick and died or when their crops failed, which happened frequently, and I can imagine that the idea of having someone or something to look to for answers offered them a great deal of comfort, as it does to people even today. However, this does not by any means change the reality of the situation, which is that the being or thing they are turning to is just that, and has no physical presence beyond that which they decide that He does.
If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. I know that it is difficult for people to accept this about God because on some level they don't want to believe it, and they also want something to be there for them when they have nothing else, so perhaps it is best that these people do still have the idea of God to offer them comfort and keep their spirits up. But I feel like we must also understand that doing this does not at all change the idea of God as He relates to my invisible spirit example. This is important to remember since it could easily be forgotten by reading or listening to anything religious that talks about God in a matter-of-fact manner. — BBQueue
Just answering the question posed at the end of the YouTube video (link provided at the top of the page): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fQWCZEbl8
1) Does everything have some mental properties? If so, how do they combine to form conscious minds? (or do they even do this?) 2) How can you explain consciousness arising from objects which are not conscious?
1) No, only living creatures can be considered to have some mental properties. They do not combine to form conscious minds as each living organism has an individual mental state.
2) There are no examples of inanimate objects have any type of consciousness.
Living beings generate consciousness based on the interaction of neurons. Is consciousness present in lower forms of life (i.e. bacteria)? I do not believe so. The presence of a brain is necessary to create a conscious being. Therefore how do bacteria "make decisions"? See Chemotaxis (i.e. Biological programming via DNA tells bacteria how to behave in response to chemical stimuli). — AZAM KHORASANI