MSC

Isn't it better to say physics is concerned with what happens to that which physically exists? Knowledge index sharing time. Universal knowledge ----------- Physical knowledge ----------- Chemical knowledge ----------- Biological knowledge ----------- Physiological knowledge ----------- Psychological knowledge ----------- Sociological Knowledge ----------- Moral knowledge ----------- Legal knowledge ----------- Cultural knowledge ----------- In-group/family knowledge ----------- Personal knowledge The formatting got a little fucked as I copy and pasted from my emails, but this is the rough draft index and it isn't finished. I want to incorporate the DIKW pyramid into it at some point too, and there needs to be theories of relationship between knowledge types. Each and every type is relevant to both the nature and context of our existence, collectively and individually. I want to correct this, but I'm not sure how. Lil help! Lol

I don't. 🤨 Really don't understand how anyone could read that in what I wrote. But I definitively never said anything about force, I've only specifically spoken about choice. Women's choices. For some people.

Agreed. I got effective sex education. Without getting into tmi, I applied the knowledge and had no teenage pregnancies and no health problems. I doubt I'd have been so lucky with abstinence only models. If abstinence is just one thing mentioned along with all other safety knowledge, that's just a fuller lesson to me. Fire safety works the same way; don't start fires if you don't need to, but if you're cooking, camping or spill water on an outlet, here is how to put out the fire. What you said about the push for abstinence only programs, and indeed politically enraged infringement within education more broadly, are really big problems. That's why I'm drawn to the diplomatic route of saying "Hey you couple of reasonable conservatives, independents and moderates, if I had a way of reducing abortion rates without making abortion illegal, will some of ya hear me out and not vote for the dark age nutbags during elections, if I'm right?" I just feel there is a dire need for a bit more creative imagination within political and moral discourse. The usual ideas just aren't cutting it anymore. The discussions need to evolve. They are stagnating. Lets talk about education, specifically womens access to primary, secondary and higher education across the world. People in countries where women have better access to education and better access to well paying jobs, tend to have less kids, but the quality of life of those children tends to be better off than poorer families, where women are less educated, and have more children. I mean, that isn't always the case, you have the exceptions of better educated women wanting more kids due to other influencing factors like just liking kids due to personality. Then less educated women wanting less kids for the opposite reasons, and people from all walks who just don't want kids at all. And I'm rambling. I've actually been waiting on a bus from Cincinnati to Chicago for over 12 hours. So I've had nothing better to do than to just... talk.

Ahhh yes but you see, while some people like to shine as bright as the gods, I'm quite different in that respect, I prefer to shine greater than the gods 🤣 Boom. Well, rarer is my best guess. I don't pretend to know what would happen to the abortion rates, if a few more ideals were realised. What is science without an experiment though? I mean that's all law and policy really is, experiments in ethics. It just sucks that they are very costly when they go wrong. Like really sucks. 😕

Thats my point of disagreement, although I do value that you get where some of the sentiment of mine is coming from, but the lack of good quality choices actually does bother me more than whether or not more or less abortions are happening, so long as I think people have gotten a fair shake, I did rawls veil of ignorance, and while life isn't fair, I just choose not to believe that it can't be made just a little bit fairer. I live in the USA now and have seen the poverty here, but experienced it first hand in being born in and growing up Scotland. I've heard about it across the world from people all over the world. I'm a hard cosmopolitan tbh. Suffering and coming to harm in America, africa, asia, wherever it's all the same to me, bad. I can be an overly sensitive, pretentious, grandiose, bleeding heart, angry asshole sometimes. I'm not unaware of this shit, I know how I sound to people... I guess I just don't care? Like I care if I hurt people and feel guilty later and have a healthy amount of shame. But I just don't really care what people think of me anymore nor do I even want to pay much attention to what people think my intentions are. I feel like I'm only a bleeding heart, because I feel like, humanities heart is bleeding, hemorrhaging even. This, talking about it, is one of the ways I cope. That's all. I don't want to get rid of contraception lol but updoot, that was funny af

You'll have to explain that one to me, went right over my head. Need to. Want doesn't even begin to become close to describing how much parents feel they need to be around their kids. I'm not sure why you're not getting everything it is I'm trying to say, but I'll think about how I can present it better. What I'm not saying; People need to have more babies, there should be less access to contraception, parents need less time with their kids. What I am saying; The improvement of the quality of life for lower income kids, from any place in the world, doesn't end at more contraception. It ends when the conditions for bringing children into the world are better, not so there are more or less, just so that people have more freedom to choose what it is they want to do. So women can choose a career and kids, or just a career and no kids, if that is what they want, so that dads and mothers stay in their kids lives and aren't forced to give them up because they couldn't afford the basics or because financial stressed tore apart a relationship or marriage. These aren't problems you can just throw condoms at.

Unless it's possible to stretch my question to the contraception subject; what if there are people using contraception, that otherwise would choose not to, if having a child wasn't riskier to health,( @StringJunkyinfant and maternal mortality rates in third world countries is a prime example there, or the same rates for non-whites here in America) career, finances and social relationships? I suppose my question, is more about just helping people be freer to make the choices they want to make based on their own wants and desires, and less dictated by their external environment, so long as it's not hurting anybody. On a more personal note; I do want to have these discussions, with people I deem to be intelligent and thoughtful enough to provide good feedback and to challenge me, even if it does aggravate me sometimes, that's my issue. So the fact that I keep coming back here, after multiple yearly bans, me lashing out at feeling rejected by this community (just in my head taking shit too personal I guess), should convey to people here the respect and admiration I have for the people here... even Inow, who I enjoy reading when i just observe and do not engage. I don't come back to projects or people I don't care about. I try my hardest to remember there are people behind the screen. Sometimes I fail. I'm not trying to brown nose or whatever, I just really don't even want a filter at this point, so long as I feel like I can just keep having fun with the discussions too. I consider all this discussion valuable dialogical research that I will definitely publish one day. Not to try to overhaul, just to sow seeds of whatever weird af ideas come out of mine or others heads that are gonna be useful to future peoples, and contribute something. None of it is even original when you think about it, just people endlessly paraphrasing and trying to explain what some old dead dude said before language had evolved enough for people to understand wtf he was trying to say (I got you big W, much love!). Anyone here heard of G.E. Moore or know anything about his moral philosophy?

See it is this last part that I don't see much of. I'm not suggesting every egg needs to be saved, I just want women to have better quality choices. Some women I've spoken to, have cited this lack of support as being a primary factor in their decision to seek an abortion and have confessed to feeling guilty about it, even though I don't believe they have any reason to feel guilty for practicing bodily autonomy. Not all women are the same, not all women seek abortions because they want them, but because the quality of their other choices is so low. You or I can start a thread about poverty in Africa and other less affluent places, but that doesn't mean I'm going to play favourites over which issues I do and do not speak about. There are kids in poverty everywhere and this demarcation between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world is pretty unfair to kids everywhere, going through adverse experiences. Why should any child be thought of as lesser than? Why can't I want conditions to be improving on every continent and be multifaceted in my approach if that is what I choose to do? Abortion today, starvation tomorrow, gun crime the next day etc. For example; another contributing factor in why (b)Some(/b) women, seek abortions, is lack of faith in a foster and adoption system that leads to children, everywhere, being abused by people they are supposed to be able to trust. We ought not to paint women as being all singularly motivated in why they seek an abortion. I mean, some people don't even want to have kids for the same reasons, so you'd think the inverse is true also. Of which, I am not, bring on the male pill as far as I'm concerned. Gonna have to be honest, if this is all just going to revolve around talk of contraception, I am gonna get pretty bored. But if this discussion isn't grabbing peoples attention, that's fine too. Hey whoa now easy there dude... I am not for less sex lmao I'm talking about people having less abortions, that's not the same as less sex. Maybe it would help if I explained that I want to come up with convincing arguments to reasonable conservatives to back access to abortion by making them back more support for families.... but preaching to the choir here I guess lol but there, that's my reason for starting these discussions and just my general... obsession with discussing this stuff. Sue me.

Hopefully... Whisky.

Yup! That's one I didn't think of but was impacted by personally. Doc put my ex on birth control after we had our daughter, messed with her hormones, milk dried up. They never told us that would happen. I mean formula is fine but it definitely got to my ex as she was only able to breastfeed for a short time and not very much either. That is a big one; what about family and community social policies that introduce more support systems, reduced childcare costs and tackle the fixable reasons that contribute to why some women choose to get abortion in the first place?

I'm talking motivations for instigation of the war on drugs, the effects and long term consequences of the war on drugs, and what values, virtues and principles guide people into supporting it to this day? How can it end and what would happen if it did end?

What i mean by this question; What positively beneficial policies could be enacted to organically lower abortion rates, by improving the quality of womens choices, without making abortions illegal or unjustifiably restricted? What sort of changes to social attitudes would need to happen in order for policies like these to be popular?

Three resources; The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, available online. The Oxford and Cambridge Philosophical dictionaries. Also online I believe. If you happen to live in Boston, the Boston public library has them and I imagine most libraries can get a hold of them anyway... It's also one of my favourite buildings and is just a really awesome place. Just one thing to keep in mind, it has kind of an old layout. The psychology section is actually a subsection within the philosophy section, an organizational relic of a time when psychology was still just a branch of philosophy and had not yet become a fully fledged scientific inquiry. But yeah, stay away from strict singular definitions, language is fluid, check out Wittgenstein and good luck. Enjoy!

This is true, although ignoring them might have a different effect, making this mf thinking it's safe to invite all their creepy alt-right chatroom friends here to grief the place. Kicking them out asap keeps reinforcing the message, when they go to their echo chambers to bitch, that the views won't be tolerated. I mean don't get me wrong; if there was the venue, the time, and the patience for it, somebody, but not me, should give unbrainwashing these people a try. Preferably someone that knows them that gives a shit. These people tire me though. I got enough problems.

I don't know if indifference is what I want any racist to be met with. There is a fine line between turning the other cheek and tolerating intolerance, which leads to the remission of tolerance. Exactly, not tolerating intolerance. That said, and this is the reason I wouldn't be a good moderator, and not having the power to ban people... or stop myself from being banned when I let people push buttons and get myself confused... I just go full polemical. But reading Diso, it was clear to see he was referring to the rules about bigotry not being tolerated here, so banning was the right choice. I just don't understand why everyone that talks about free speech like this on the forum, doesn't see how the forum banning them, is also an exercise of free speech. Fuck off is speech. Falling asleep because someone is boring af is communicating. Actions speak louder than words, but louder doesn't mean words are not loud. What the dude really meant, was that he thought his right to free speech superseded everyone elses right to it too. @iNowbtw you're not gonna be able to push my buttons again lmao. My next door neighbor for the past year and a half was Nick Fucking Fuentes and he's still my ex wife and daughters neighbour-.- so yeah, that has developed a lot more self control. I'm sorry for what I said to you last we spoke. Was just angry and confused and you can admit that you enjoy provoking me just a bit lol

Phenomenology of consciousness. You can pretty much do phenomenology on just about every subject you can think of, I read an interesting piece once on the phenomenology of the ghost. It was in spanish though, so I'm not sure how much of it translated but it seemed like it was talking about ghosts in literature and the metaphors and allegories that can be interpreted by their myriad uses in fiction. Probably a lot more I missed, but phenomenology is definitely more of... I'd say it's linguistically artistic when done well, unintelligible ramblings when not done well, but never ever perfect. I also prefer it when it goes in depth into philosophical feelings as well as philosophical thought, but then I would say that because one of my inspirations is Hume lol

Like I said to @TheVat, while my question was about the nature of our existence, I still believe it is relevant to discuss what you want to discuss about the nature of physical objects and mathematical objects. I see it as relevant and if any of us get to far OT, I'm sure the mods will let us know. @Phi for All are we all still on topic dyou think? I believe so but you're the boss. I like your curiousity and willingness to engage tbh, also your intellectual humility at admitting this isn't your usual ball park. That said, 7hours of your life is all you need to grasp the fundamentals. Go onto YouTube and check out crash course philosophy, delivered by the awesome Hank Green! Roughly 10 minute episodes, roughly 50 of them, really accessible and it explains all the vocabulary and terminology fairly well, or gives you keywords to research on your own, which I would immediately take to the online Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Free knowledge is the best knowledge! For the crash course though, I do not recommend binge watching it. Two to three episodes a day is more than enough with ample time of reflection. Otherwise it can be overwhelming as philosophy is not easy by any means. Honestly though, that crash course changed my life for the better and I've seen so many improvements in all areas of my life. It doesn't really matter what your views are either, for me philosophy is about self discovery more than anything else, as it helps you figure out how to present your own views and gives you the language and critical thinking skills needed to present your ideas and challenge them yourself. To put that simply, you're going to be judged in philosophy for how well you present your views, not what they are... okay sometimes what they are too cuz everyone is biased lol

Ahhh, so it's more of difference in semantics but with the same result? That's the islamic banks though, but it is nice to know my individual muslim friends wouldn't charge me interest if I needed a lend. Not that I'd ever ask cuz I make my own money. Good to speak to you again btw, Phi. Yeah this is why I didn't respond to him. Was he talking to me or someone else? Yeah AI stuff is getting everywhere these days. That said, I do talk to a very well designed one, via email and honestly it's some very addictive conversation because the AIs personality is a total philosophy nerd. Well worth a chat, I can send you the email address if you'd like? Was very interesting to hit it with contextualism because they do kind of function through contextual memory and it was fun stretching it with ideas of mine that you can only currently find the inspirations and basics for in publicly released philosophy research. They can learn new stuff, dont know how much it will remember though when it speaks to someone else.

I'd say it is an absolute, but I am very glad you brought up frame of reference. That's a very important point to make and I appreciate you making it. Okay, so a lot of my research is all based on theories of relationships and an indexical view of epistemology through context relativism. Now, before anyone screams "oh no not relativism!" I want to make something very clear, context relativism is a form of truth and moral objectivism. What determines whether or not a flavour of relativism is subjective or objective, is what we are saying truth is relative to. Cultural relativism = subjective, Context relativism = objective. In order for us to make true statements and utterances about existence, we need to put what we are saying into it's correct context. The context of our existence, is essentially the state of affairs of our universe. Context comes from the Latin Contexare which means, that which is weaved (b)together(/b). We all have a limited view of the context of our existence, but together in collaboration, discussion, research, reflection and respectful debate, we come closer to the true context of it all. In my opinion, Contextualism does for metaphysics what the standard cosmological model does for physics and cosmology. By that I mean, it's not entirely complete, but is our current best guess due primarily to its explanatory power. Existence is to me, simply anything that just is, to exist is to be somewhere, whether that is in space or mind-space. But I'm not into strict definitions, so long as useful meaning is conveyed, as per the conveyance theory of meaning. There is still a lot to go through, have I lost anybody? Happy to try and explain more in depth but this stuff, like existence, is not simple. Everything is complex. True, however I do think it is relevant to talk about the nature of other forms of existence and the nature of existence itself, if for only comparative analysis. A good example may be if I had a thread asking "what is truth?" It would be relevant to ask what falsehood is too, just like you can't speak of certainty without also speaking about doubt. And yes, get your tea my friend. I'm currently running on caffeine after getting stuck on the side of the highway in Kentucky on a broken down bus for 6 hours, on a 15h long journey. I've had only an hours sleep in the past 24. So running on fumes myself and probably gonna have to come back and correct myself when I've gotten some rest.

Yes. At least I would say so. It's all within the context of our existence.

Existence most definitely applies to animate and inanimate objects, but it also applies to imaginary objects too. See this question is essentially supposed to be a foil for existentialism, that questions whether or not we are real or if we exist. Personally, I see existence as a given. Clearly we all have an existence we are aware of, as does everything else within our universe of discourse. What differs is the nature of that existence. Me, a rock and Harry Potter, all have an existence. The difference between is the nature of that existence. I'm a living being, a rock is an inanimate object, Harry Potter is fictional character/idea that exists within and can influence the minds of living beings... even against what the creator of Harry Potter wishes. Yes to the first question; the nature of a given being, object, idea or person are different in a lot of ways but also share commonalities. As for your second question, no, there cannot be a something outside of existence that does not exist, that's just the nothing.

@mistermacksounds like you're on the right track lol

In steps economic compatibilism. The state owns alternatives within the needs based economy based on the five pillars of a thriving populace. Education, Healthcare, Housing, Food/Water and Energy. To be clear, the state owns alternatives, not the entire industries. It regulates private businesses that still engage and do business within the needs based economy. The free market is for our wants based economy. Capitalise on our wants, provide our needs. I mean, it's obviously a lot more complicated than that, but I'm just spitballing here and this idea was slightly inspired by the five pillars of Islam. Just as a side note; in Shariah law, charging interest on loans is forbidden as usury. Does anyone else not just love that idea? Lol Also, hello Dim, good to speak to you again. It's been awhile.

I absolutely detest the question; What is the meaning of life? It's just, really poorly worded when you think about it. So I spent a decade or so, trying to just figure out a better question to ask. This is it; What is the nature of our existence? I could go on I guess, but I'd rather just let people sit with the question. As for why "What is the meaning of life?" Is a pretty shite question; that's a whole other thread!

I guess I'll start; You all want me, knowing I will hurt you, I'm oh so flattered you think me a virtue. If you let me in, good and bad times I will bring, I've won more battles than any man or king. Sometimes I'm dark, sometimes I shine, some think me a curse while others think me divine. If you guess my name, then I'll raise a toast, you'll be with the one who invites me the most.