zedvictor4

Good philosophical point.

Though I run with the notion....I think therefore I am.

Maybe we are just quantum simulators, but surely that is indicative of a certain level of existence.

Hey Besty,

People have been attempting to baffle brains with bullshit ever since they came up with the idea of a GOD.

Let's call this one the Bestological Argument.

But just bear in mind that for every Bestological argument there is always  a counter-logical argument.

Man made up GOD, and then wrote a book that cannot prove GOD.......Simple.

Does Best Korea exist?

Why would I be on a side?

I was just reflecting upon the futility of reminiscence.

The terms "Gods Kingdom" and "Communism" are blatantly contradictory.

I also note that you have shifted your position from "I don't care" to a position of "I don't care that much".

And unless you vocalise your prayers, they will only occur internally  as temporary bursts of internal electro chemical activity.

And if someone else should happen to pick up any relative sound waves, then they will process them in much the same fashion.

For sure, we observe one universe and hypothesise reasonably logically.

Doesn't mean that we cannot hypothesise another universe reasonably logically too

After all two logically following one is quite an established concept.

And OK. I don't use Ebuc-speak......But you keep suggesting the concept of infinite space, albeit unoccupied. Though I would  prefer to suggest the unlimited potential of infinite space.

Nonetheless, as your observations are limited by your self imposed one universe limitations, then how can you possibly know that no other universal scenarios are playing out elsewhere.

Let's simply refer to the two ideas, as the potentially occupied infinite space hypothesis and  the unoccupied infinite space hypothesis.

After all, given the potential of infinity, then this universe takes up no room at all, and observation is impossible.

Just because we cannot observe another inhabited planet within this universe, that doesn't mean that there is not potentially another inhabited planet in this largely unobservable universe.

I would finally suggest that we actually observe very little and speculate rather a lot.

The other day you were caring about communism.

Had you forgotten?

Surely there is a link between crime rates, and an imperfect society.

And most certainly in the kitchen.

And also doing everything else that Mr Lazy won't do.

Just another GOD argument.

Though "Atheism" is simply a conceptual label applied to a sequenced output of data relative to Deism concepts.

Concepts exist as internal electro-chemical reactions to stimuli.

As for belief, one can believe or not believe anything one so chooses.

Belief neither proves nor disproves.

Makes perfect sense.

The Planet Earth dictionary defines a universe.

Another dictionary on another planet in another universe would probably do the same.

Infinite space, infinite potential.

A simple, simple idea.....I find it odd that you are not able to grasp it.

No reason why infinite space that cannot be observed is necessarily unoccupied. 

Unoccupied infinite space is but one hypothesis.

So yesterday was.

Now is and then the future.

What if yesterday.

When and where did they attack you.

In the shopping Mall perhaps.

I cycled across the USA a few years back and never met an unfriendly person of any colour.

I think that you will actually find that most people are respectful of most people.

But for sure, there will always be those who insist on being antagonistic....." White" and "Black".

And a few that insist on being aggressive......"White" and "Black".

And their antagonism is greatly assisted by social media.

And their aggression is underpinned by their conditioning.....As is your desire for  Planet Monotone.....And your fear of perceivable differences.....And your fear of change.

Universe in a human dictionary is named for a specific universe, namely this one.

From the Latin Universum.

For sure, neither the old Latin nor the current dictionary are rocket science.

So why, in infinite space shouldn't there be another universe in another dictionary.

As we seem to agree that infinite space has infinite potential.

And then there were cops.

Legal is as legal does.

Legal has nothing to do with the evolution of the human binary species.

So who is attacking you?

See above #99. #101.

"Observed time is finite".

So what about unobserved time.

Ditto. #99

"If finite space were to expand".

So how would you know that there is only one universe in an infinite space. 

"Space is infinite". #99

Probably a Rangers Fan.

If you ask the right people the right question they will say the right answer.

Nonetheless, more than half the "Blacks" polled gave the wrong answer.

If you had polled the appropriate "White" audience, the results would probably be similar.

Bearing in mind that black and white doesn't actually mean black and white, but rather but a recognition of dissimilarity based upon geographical origin, ethnicity and perpetuated historical grievancies.

Also bearing in mind that you and your cronies perpetuate racial antagonism, just as much as your "Black" counterparts do.

Nutter:  A thug with a propensity for the headbutt. Often associated with Glasgow, Scotland......See Glasgow Kiss.

Egg producing half of the human binary system.

Everything else is bollocks.....HaHaHaHa.

And legality is as legality does.

How?

How do you know who is right and who is wrong.

All that the 2nd amendment does is allow people to bear arms, which doesn't mean to say that those people will necessarily be good people.

The people that you assume to be bad people, might actually be the good people. 

Holocaust isn't fantasy, with Hollywood dictating the rules.

Why do time and space need to be observed.

As far as we are able to know, time and space have been unobserved for most of the time.

And if a universe has finite potential....Then what?

Do all universes have the same potential?

For sure, time and space are infinitely possible.

Overfed Republicans.

Or the 2nd amendment could quite easily lead to another holocaust.

Remove the dogma, and one group of armed people with an idea is no different to another group of armed people with an idea.

Nonetheless, "normal" people have a tendency to be selectively moral when it comes to respect for other life.

Well as ever, even the word solipsism has more than one application.

But I assume you are referring to the philosophical theory.

Cogito ergo sum as Rene said.

But, I sense and I think, so therefore I can only think that you are.

Not that I do not apply more certainty than uncertainty to the thought.

Though, as everything that we sense is converted to an internal simulation, we can only assume that our simulation is an accurate representation of an externality

So as such, I have a solipsist tendency tinged with a reasonably assured reasonably accurate sense of connectivity to something else.

I would suggest that by the time a human being gets to college, they are already coddled.

Acquired misinformation or  mal-information or inappropriate information, is learned between the ages of zero and college.

Latter day responses to the brutality of independence are already predetermined.

In my opinion.

From a tourists information perspective.

Certain areas of New York are usually safe.

Certain areas of New York are generally not safe.

And certain areas of New York that are usually safe, are not safe after dark.

Same as most big cities I suppose.

Whereas Stephen might envisage,

Two old Coppers musing, late evening,

In a quiet country gateway,

Thermos tea and cheese and pickle in hand,

Hoping.....That nothing kicks off.

Radio crackles,

Control to ZedVictor 4.

Bollocks.

Do you regard yourself as a cleansing superhero.

Only joking, no offence,

But  encouraged by word association,

I immediately had a mental image,

Of Saniton in a Superman costume.

Belief is an aptly defined nonsense in itself.

So we construct an indisputable construct,

And no one can dispute it.

Notwithstanding that the indisputable construct is only what it is.

But all that we can do is either believe it or not.

Whereas my mental image of  Stephen

Inspired by word association

Is a snowy Christmas wonderland

Woolly jumpers, Christmas pud and festive cheer.

Winter festival indeed.

Yep, forced communism is not communism.

And is also not sharing.

As I stated, true communism doesn't work, because people are not equal.

You cannot force physiological equality and therefore social equality, because inequality is inherent.

Forcing people is authoritarianism, rather than communism.

You have already implied a two tier system  of social control.

Which will inevitably lead to a multi-tiered system.

The Lawmakers. (Incorporating it's own hierarchical system)

The Administrators. (Incorporating it's own hierarchical system)

The Law enforcers. (Incorporating it's own hierarchical system)

The Workforce. (Incorporating it's own hierarchical system)

Communism is the philosophical daydream of philosophical daydreamers.

Social systems are all essentially the same.

Just more or less brutal.

One would suggest that coddling a mind, as in formatively conditioning the human computer to instruct the whole to achieve certain things in life, is the basis of both inspirational parenting and human evolution.

So are you perhaps suggesting that American society has reached a point of negative over-coddling

Relative to what?.......Perhaps current  sexual trends is what you are driving at.

Exactly.

I would suggest that together we have exemplified the necessary ambiguity of belief and the necessary ambiguity built into it's definition.

Which consequently defines how we do or do not or may or may not relate internal data analysis to external possibilities.

Subjective reasoning as it were.

My understanding of the concept, is that everything has balanced effects and properties.

Rather than specific things having specific opposites.

Though one could say water or no water, which is effectively wet and dry or flood and drought.

Nonetheless, isn't the basis of the concept just an awareness that EVERYTING is balanced unless unbalanced.

So pure H2O is balanced, and therefore can be unbalanced.

And therefore the human mass is also balanced unless unbalanced....With specific regard to the use of drugs such as nicotine and psilocybin.

My understanding of karma is not the same....Karma implies universal consequences rather than universal harmony.

Which is not to say that there are not consequences to both harmony and disharmony. 

True.

Living for ever  as an organic structure would be reliant upon stopping the aging and deterioration clock sooner rather than later.

Maybe we will be able download consciousness and our individual intellect and personality to an alternative medium.

After all, physical experience is only an internal simulation of a physical experience.

So we would only need to simulate an external experience in order to be able to consciously experience and  re-simulate it.

What are your views on Yin and Yang.

For every effect the is a necessary opposite effect.

With regard to the positive/negative properties of nicotine and psilocybin, and how they relate or react to/with the positive/negative properties of the human condition.

Yep, I did say that belief is necessarily an ambiguously defined word.

Nonetheless, I would say that thinking old chairs are more likely to break than newer chairs is not a belief. But an assumed though not necessarily accurate probability based upon experience.

The necessary ambiguity of belief allows the thinker to assume without any factual input or knowledge.

A prime example being, an existent GOD.

I personally do not believe anything.

I either know, or make correct or incorrect assumptions based upon experience.

For example:

If I regularly use the No10 bus every day to get to work, then based upon experience I assume that the No10 bus will come today. 

This is not a belief, just an expectation.

If I just stood at the side of a road and believed a bus to turn up, this would be foolish.

I would also suggest that all experience, understanding and outcomes, including belief and fact, require subjective processing.

Therefore objectivity is arrived at, but is reliant upon subjective processing.

 

@ADreamOfLiberty

Well I agree with that.

So if gender dysphoria isn't a prenatally acquired biological condition, then it is a postnatally acquired/learned condition.

A social or cultural trend, in other words.

So not an inherent design flaw.....Just flawed thinking.

Perhaps it should be re-thought?

Safer than what?

For sure the effects of smoking are variable relative to individual smoking behaviour.

Nonetheless some level of inhalation is unavoidable, and tobaccos addictive constituents are still an issue.

Your enjoyment is simply an illusive reaction to a chemical stimulant.... Which by it's very nature is unsafe to a degree.

But so is driving a car.

Enjoy.

Is the development of the dysphoric mind relative to sexuality, evolutionary in terms of biological evolution or data evolution?

And what are we actually discussing here?.....Procreational sexuality or recreational sexuality.

There are certain implications that arise depending on how one answers these two questions.

Which still suggests to me that the trans/dysphoric argument is not necessarily sincere, or well established as a physiological principle.

Belief is necessarily an ambiguously defined word.

Dependant upon the biology and corresponding functionality of independent similar but dissimilar data processing systems.

Whereby data input and appreciation is variable x approximately 8 billion.

I'm not sure that agreement is ever more than a one sided conclusion to a two sided argument....Which is not necessarily a negative factor, in terms of intellectual and material development.

Now what does that mean?

Some might say that mindsets evolve and develop relative to the criteria that I mentioned above.

I doubt that human systems as they currently are, will ever evolve a standard mindset.

Alternative Intelligence the next generation maybe.

Though that is not to say that human systems are not modifiable.

Nonetheless, material development thus far is indicative of past success relative to the human system, though the human system is becoming more reliant upon alternative input.

Though if a word is representative of something not wholly definable, then definition must represent this.

So 171 posts later, and  have we agreed upon how to define consciousness.

Consciousness:   Green light on, data processing unit functioning.

Unconsciousness:   Red light on, data processing unit not functioning.

Dead:    Irreversible system failure.

A way to get things done.

Sort of the beyond the limits of positive incentive.

True.

Magic required a magical solution.

A necessary side effect of critical awareness.

And  magic is the still the only answer to the biggest question

Therefore we must conclude that magic is still not implausible.

Though magic is not necessarily unquantifiable.....Cause and effect as it were.

Perhaps it better to say that everything is impossibly possible, so therefore magical.

I suppose that it  all depends upon how we appreciate and apply the internal narrative.

To wit, the biggest question precedes the big question.....In my humble opinion.

The concept exists.

Doesn't mean that the concept is universally necessary or not

Doesn't mean that the concept is universally useful or not.

For sure, everything might be completely different to how we think it is.

But that is questioning our version of knowledge so far, in comparison to that of a hypothetical reality.

Why should we doubt what we know, in favour of Kaku's hypothesis.

Perhaps thinks are as they seem.

Brilliant.

Wise as an Owl.