Recent posts by wargamer1000 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Nature of Time - {Metaphysics and Physics} As Matter is to Space :: as Entropy is to Time

Except, in the world of Physics, time is very rigidly defined. Although time may dilate, it is defined to be an interval between two events. The only quibbles with time are philosophical, and mainly for aesthetic reasons. Poor philosophical crybabies kicking and screaming for a more ideal definition of time. Well, too bad. We use time in our calculations, not you. You don’t get to prescribe it for your own personal tastes, philosophers. Yes, we know what time is.

How ‘long’ is an interval between two events? Sounds like one is using time to prove time. No we don’t know what time is. Furthermore, if there exists ‘philosophical squabbling’ it implies a lacking of physics.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Any good Book suggestions?

The Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. George Berkeley.

Have you ever doubted the senses? If not, read.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Atheism a belief system?

Atheism (as distinct from this church of atheism) doesn’t have any of that. The person simply doesn’t believe the gods exist, and so dedicates absolutely zero portion of their time developing an intricate system of beliefs all tied to that core belief.

What about the non-theistic religions?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Beliefs About Sharia Among Muslims

During the periods of the empires of the Ottoman, Safavid-Qajar, and the Mughals (which pretty much encompassed most of the Middle East) the application of sharia seemed common place and widely accepted. The Middle East was relatively peaceful in comparison to the strife of the christian European continent, viz. Thirty-Years War, Napoleonic Wars. Conflicts between these huge empires was practically the only problem however the case was that it was not frequent. Even the Shia and Sunni divide was practically negligible as a cause for such wars.

I’m trying to raise the point that Political Instability is the root cause of radicalization and religion herself not. Though Mohammedans have a good ability to use religion to further political aims. The union of piety and statecraft run deep in the societies in Middle East posterior to the golden age of the Umayyads and was largely successful unlike the European nation-states where the trend inclines towards secularism, as History dictates. The concept of nationhood developed late, in fact I’d claim that ideas of nation-hood during 16-19th Century was useless, muslims found satisfaction under rule of empires governing effectively when it comes to organizing peoples of diverse ethnicities, e.g Ottoman Millets. Muslims never conceived themselves ‘separate’ from each other like how the French differentiates himself from the German during those times and this was a key thing, only merely acknowledging their duties to their respective Sultans (for the case of the Ottoman sultan, he was also the Kalifa.)

It was until the collapse of the Middle East imperials and the entry of the European imperialism (take for example the collapse of the Mughal empire) wherein the West did not particularly understand how the East organized themselves is when the instability ensued which I shall draw parallel to the second Gulf War and the Syrian Civil War.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What Are You Reading?

Originally posted by Tacket:

Anyone have any good philosophical readings that they would like to share?

All schools of thought are welcomed.

Advaita Vedanta – Indian Philosophy

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can a Perfectly Just State Exist?

The preliminaries are firstly: what is ‘just’? Second, does ‘treating everyone equally’ fall under the class of what’s ‘just’? Third, is what’s ‘just’ necessarily ‘equal’ and vice versa?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it possible to recreate a person?

What makes you you, especially in contrast to somebody else?

Definitions. If I were someone else, I’d still be me (as that someone else would be me → contadiction). The point is that I cannot be someone else by definition (someone else =/= me).

I like this answer. That which we could call ‘a this’ is sufficient enough to entail others are ‘not a this’. It appears we could already determine what one is without enumerating accidentals (i.e physical attributes, experience, brain functions..)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it possible to recreate a person?

What makes you you, especially in contrast to somebody else?

@MagicEggPlant

Your experiences. In other words, the data you’ve ‘chosen’ to feed into the computer in your head.

What makes our experiences any different from others? What exclusive subjective interaction do we possess and that others do not?


@ vika

This in turn would lead to different thoughts running in her head, despite the hardware actually being physically the same.

So it is the ‘thoughts’ that which distinguishes one’s self different from another being, is this right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it possible to recreate a person?

What makes you you, especially in contrast to somebody else?

Perspective. I only have the perspective of life inside this neurological system, and not the perspective of life from inside another neurological system.

By perspective you mean a point of view? Also, you mention ‘this’ neurological system and ‘another’ of the same- is there something that makes neurological systems different?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The paradox of suicide

There is something I just don’t understand about people who become suicidal. All living, thinking beings possess a survival instinct, which serves to keep them alive so that they may reproduce. When young people attempt suicide, this is a direct contradiction of survival instincts.

On the matter at hand, can we not surmise other scenarios on suicide, shall I say for example: deliberately volunteering for military conscription in a war. Another is: two lovers committing suicide together, and perhaps also: killing one’s self for the preservation of family honor. So on and so forth. Are these ‘direct contradictions of survival instincts’ per se?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Japan forgets it's history. Chooses war.

In a section of their constitution its says:

“the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”

How unfortunate of Japan to have limits to it’s capabilities. Other nation-states are more ‘free’ in the exercise of their powers. I take this as a liberation, an emancipation, for the nation-state of Japan for the freedom to flex its muscles and project power. To equate this with inevitable war is nonsensical.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

In the context of this discussion, it’s the part of your mind which supposedly survives the death of your body, without any technological interference.

That is perhaps a characteristic of the soul. Can we say that is the essential whatness of the soul, its essence, that which it truly is- a paltry ‘part of your mind which supposedly survives the death of the body’?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

Originally posted by BCLEGENDS:

Define soul.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

I’d call everything observable “material” and I wouldn’t call anything that is not observable “existing”.

Is ‘time’, ‘love’ and ‘justice’ (like many other things) observable phenomena?

As such, the claim presented includes only a single axiom which, being an axiom, doesn’t need to be “observed to be true”.

Axioms need not the use of ‘observation’, yes. Mathematical postulates have no use of ‘observation’ yet would you disregard them?

As such calling X real is completely inconsequential and also flies in the face of everything we can collectively agree to be real

Cars and other material objects are said to be real suppositions whereas unicorns and souls and the like are said to be logical suppositions. ‘Existence’ isn’t pegged to ‘real’ suppositions. Truthfully, the only thing inconsequential is the lack of understanding of the terms when most are equivocal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

What I see as consciousness is inseparable from experience.

Yes. Alright, and recall that:

As such, I see the soul as consciousness

further

I believe that consciousness persists beyond death.

Consciousness; the soul, is inseparable from experience, as you say, but isn’t death the termination of experience-is it not? So how precisely does it persist beyond death if it were inseparable from experience? One couldn’t say experience further proceeds after death.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

As such, I see the soul as consciousness, and I see consciousness as that whose excitations are subjective experiences. It is the ‘medium’ of experience.

Is consciousness that which gives experience, or is it that which grants access to experience, or that which interprets experience?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Sounds like this Richard Gilmartin is the one a little out of touch and a lot pig-ignorant.

Yes, it merely ‘sounds’ like that’s the case. Richard Gilmartin however presents a weak inductive argument.

He’s also projecting his own fears and insecurities onto the children.

What makes you certain that’s precisely what he’s doing?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

The impact is not negligible, it’s huge.

If and only if there were actually a million and more migrants headed for the same particular country for some ridiculous reason annually. The number of migrants actually compete with the quantity of tourists though.

The migrants in europe are said to be headed towards the United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden. Namely these three countries’ stability and affluence seems to attract people. Theoretically, these three countries themselves could equally divide the flow of migrants and it would be nonsensical to say "their numbers could cause instability so much so!’’. Some prefer France and Switzerland, while others prefer Spain and Italy. Plenty of countries and the whole European continent to share the burden. Secretly, Europe needs the manpower also its a misconception to say that all migrants are unskilled and uneducated. There are only a few problems- smugglers and terrorists.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Enlightenment

Originally posted by SirEthan719:

The realization that we are all one, that we all have the same objective in life. To be happy and to not experience suffering. To experience a peaceful tranquility of mind and body. To resist anger and hatred and embrace love and compassion.

Begin then, how we ought to best achieve these ends. For I assume these to be as conclusive as they can be and needs no further reason for doing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Enlightenment

I recently have begun my path on spiritual enlightenment.

I must ask: what is spiritual enlightenment?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The origin of sexism - are men better than women?

Originally posted by Destruction98:

Women are better then men.

This is a fancy construct as true as its opposite. But more importantly, an example of a non-argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

what I am saying is that experience and consciousness cannot be separated. There exists consciousness, which is experiential by nature. Ultimately there is only consciousness and it’s behaviors.

And you define consciousness that whose behaviors are subjective experience- which is all things. So it is an absolute imperative for consciousness to interact with itself; which forms basis of the reality, and consequently have an experience of itself, and what it is itself is a behavior of subjective experience. Or simply put as: all of reality is a series of experience which experiences an experience, isn’t it?

Indeed this would imply that there would be no separation of what is an experience from what has an experience.

This does not imply that everything that you see is conscious.

Why is this if everything, as you say, is ultimately consciousness? I really don’t follow.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

In the above example you are not aware of your driving because it has been obfuscated by your thoughts. Bernardo likes to use the stars as an analogy to relay this concept. When you look up at the sky at night, you can see plenty of stars. When you look at the sky at noon these stars are nowhere to be found. The light from the stars is still hitting your retina, but it is being obfuscated by the much stronger glare of the sun.

The glare of the sun ‘obfuscates’ the light from the stars, not because of my thoughts or even my judgement and simple apprehension of a phenomena but the mere matter of fact that the light of the sun obscures the light of the star. What is this even proving?

You are never not conscious. Absence of memory does not demonstrate absence of experience.

Is experience a part of consciousness? Is experience a necessary or sufficient condition for consciousness-that is: does experience follow from consciousness or consciousness from experience?

There is no dualism between what we call the unconscious aspects of mind and our waking consciousness. They are both made of the same ‘stuff’. The difference is the ‘unconscious’ aspects of mind happen outside of our personal awareness. These mental processes are not outside of mind itself.

Isn’t it then, from what you say, that the consciousness has aspects within itself that is basically unconscious, that which is contrarily an opposite quality?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

Have you ever driven home from work while being caught up in your thoughts, and suddenly found yourself back at your house? The car did not drive itself. On some level you were conscious of your driving or you would not have made it back home, but you were not self-reflectively aware of it, so it seemed unconscious. The driving experience was obfuscated by the your thoughts.

Let assume this is true and it actually occurs.

If what I am is consciousness, how is it that I am occasionally not conscious? The one mind is self-reflectively aware of itself, and I too am manifest of this mind, as you say, and yet I’m not always self-reflectively aware of myself. Indeed, why?

It is because your separating ‘I’, the thinking subject, from the ‘consciousness’ despite saying ‘I’ is very well ‘consciousness’. I believe your imposing how I have somehow different ‘mental processes’ than the mind. Hence a sort of dualism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Life after death, consciousness, the brain, and the nature of reality

I do not mean that mind literally fragments, this is not necessary to have multiple perspectives within one mind. I will use an analogy to explain “divison” of perspective. Imagine yourself standing on a stage. From your vantage point you can see the whole stage and everything in it. Then somebody places a curtain in front of you. Now you can only see a partition of the stage. The stage itself has not been cut. Your awareness of the stage outside of the curtain has simply been obfuscated by the curtain. You are still standing on the stage of mind.

Alright. However, supposing all is consciousness, as you say, why is it that consciousness ‘obfuscates’ consciousness? How something intelligible renders itself obscure? This isn’t a problem of the filtration of consciousness per se rather the ludicrous folly of its experience of itself that which is somehow incomplete.

Truly if it underlies reality, there would be no necessary ‘curtain’ that which partitions the experience of itself simply because there is no sufficient reason for it. Unless there is?