What do you believe in?
-
Morals are objective.
Can you elaborate?
-
Free will is an illusion.
Either as Hard determinism (60% confidence in this theory), or as in some form of Quantum randomness (40% confidence in this theory), you cannot just willy nilly pick something. Its just an algorithm, and, possibly, a little bit of randomness, if Quantum randomness is true.
I agree that free will is an illusion, but have decided that because it is true it isn't worth thinking about further.
I don't find the "why" to be interesting, which is interesting because it is like "I" am trying to avoid further reflection on that fact which "I" also have no control over. haha
-
Only that which has evidence to support it.
How much n is enough n?
-
A good cup of coffee and the universe does not care about existence.
Why does the Universe have an opinion about existence?
-
Believing in something seems to imply thinking something to be true without having evidence for it - otherwise it would be knowledge, a justified true belief. So I know a couple things, like that I exist as a conscious being, and have practical empirical knowledge of the rest of the sensory world too.
Believe means to accept as true or real, and does not define the precondition to the belief.
How can you prove that you exist as a conscious being?
How can you prove that your senses can be trusted?
-
Myself and Sasquatch.
Only the guy in the Sasquatch suit would say this.
We got 'em. We finally got 'em.
-
That my dogs will aways be happy to see me
This is adorable.
-
Causing pain is bad.
What if by causing pain one heals a wound?
-
Something, don't know what, but all can't be random.
I prefer to believe in randomness because it makes everything that much more mind blowing to think about.
-
- Water is wet
- The sky is blue
- Women have secrets
The sky isn't blue.
-
Believe means to accept as true or real, and does not define the precondition to the belief.
How can you prove that you exist as a conscious being?
How can you prove that your senses can be trusted?
-
I am thinking about whether I exist as a conscious being. Therefore there must be an 'I' to be thinking that.
-
I can't prove that my senses can be trusted with 100% certainty to tell me truth - in fact I can prove the opposite with things like optical illusions. However, when interacting with the world that I only know is real through my senses, basing my behaviour on those same senses that let me know the world exists seems reasonable to me. That's what I call practical knowledge, rather than true knowledge.
-
-
If humans are inherently evil, why is evil not the dominant force in the world? One would assume that if everyone were indeed evil, greedy, and out for themselves our existence could only be anarchy.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Who says it is not the dominant force?
End stage capitalism is pretty close to anarchy and we will see what happens next.After 25 years in healthcare and humanitarian work you get a grim perspective.
-
-
I am thinking about whether I exist as a conscious being. Therefore there must be an 'I' to be thinking that.
-
I can't prove that my senses can be trusted with 100% certainty to tell me truth - in fact I can prove the opposite with things like optical illusions. However, when interacting with the world that I only know is real through my senses, basing my behaviour on those same senses that let me know the world exists seems reasonable to me. That's what I call practical knowledge, rather than true knowledge.
How do you define "I"?
In other words you believe what your senses tell you to be real even though you cannot objectively prove your senses to be trustworthy?
-
-
I haven't played any of the Sonic games since Sonic and Knuckles so I am going to have to take your word on all of that. haha
I am partial to how the Joycon is set up myself, but I think it is just because of how much I play it compared to alternate styled consoles.
Sonic and Knuckles special stages are so much better, in my opinion. Maybe I'm just not good at the Lost World special stages on 3DS, but I somehow struggle because they use motion controls ( moving myself and the whole system to move in a 3D environment ). Moving along in a straight line to collect balls is so much easier, in my opinion.
Also, joycons are an alright enough setup, but I personally don't like how small they are. My hands were not made for extended unattached usage of those things.
-
Who says it is not the dominant force?
End stage capitalism is pretty close to anarchy and we will see what happens next.After 25 years in healthcare and humanitarian work you get a grim perspective.
If you were correct society as a whole would already exist as true anarchy, therefore humans are not inherently evil, greedy, or out for themselves. We could not coexist in any meaningful way if that were true.
-
How do you define "I"?
In other words you believe what your senses tell you to be real even though you cannot objectively prove your senses to be trustworthy?
-
'I' is the thing that is thinking it
-
I don't 'believe' that my senses are real, but that it's good enough to act as though they are real, regarding the sensory world.
-
-
What is stopping you from having friends?
Myself I guess.
-
If humans are inherently evil, why is evil not the dominant force in the world? One would assume that if everyone were indeed evil, greedy, and out for themselves our existence could only be anarchy.
hy is evil not the dominant force in the world?
It is tho, capitalistic cruelty literally runs on the blood and sweat of the lower classes, if that isn't evil I don't know what is
-
If you were correct society as a whole would already exist as true anarchy, therefore humans are not inherently evil, greedy, or out for themselves. We could not coexist in any meaningful way if that were true.
I really don't know where you get your assumptions from but they are terrible
The only reason society exists is because of a fucktonne of rules going back several thousand years about how you are supposed to behave in a society
If you want to see what barebones humans without societal rules, read up on feral children
-
Can you elaborate?
Sure!
Argument is that you can't just call something objectively evil or good. "Murder isn't evil, what if it was in self-defense."
That's overcomplicating it. If you weren't missing any context you could get around "what if" situations.
Now I don't think we can tell right from wrong at all times. Everything from personal experience, current position in history, and traits like greed make it hard for us. But still, there should be a right answer.
In practice this just means if I feel a topic is controversial to me, I will keep thinking or researching about it until I have a pretty stable stand. As opposed to "it's confusing so I don't want to think about."
I could at least get closer to right answer this way.
Hope this helps!
