Agent Smith

Everybody agrees that you can't do whatever you want, but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want. In other words there's a difference between speech & action. Why else the lack of consensus on these two? Thought ➡️ Speech ➡️ Action. Thought police: A big no-no! Speech police: Yeah/No/May be! Action police: Yes! Absolutely! It is as expected! Oui? Shriek doin' her thing! ⬇️ https://youtu.be/zulYWSjrqb0 How do I post videos?

Everybody agrees that you can't do whatever you want, but only a few agree that you can't say whatever you want. In other words there's a difference between speech & action. Why else the lack of consensus on these two? Thought ➡️ Speech ➡️ Action. Thought police: A big no-no! Speech police: Yeah/No/May be! Action police: Yes! Absolutely! It is as expected! Oui?

Yes, very funny!

A very interesting comment as far as I'm concerned. Engineers have to live with guilt on that score: due to constraints (material, and mathematical, cost), s/he has to design/build structures (houses/bridges/etc.) in a way that each element in a structure is multi-functional (doing two/more jobs at once), the exact inverse of redundancy where two/more elements serve the same purpose (safety first). The engineer has to do a fine balancing act between multi-functionality (cost) and redundancy (safety). 👍

Dreams bring to my mind the psychiatric phenomenon multiple personality disorder. In both cases the "individuals" (the dream person vs. the awake person and one personality vs. anothee personalityl are separated by a hole/gap in memory: one usually doesn't remember one's dreams and the two/more individuals in multiple personality disorder don't remember/know each other. On occasion, when one is aroused during a dream, one can recall one's dream, but, from my own personal experience, the recollection is imperfect: you're left with only the thought that one had a dream without any idea or memory of the details thereof; it's the same feeling/experience as realizing one has forgotten something without ever finding out what exactly it is that one fails to remember.

In line with the OP's observations, the only way I can eff since is by saying science isn't about the correspondence theory of truth, it's more about the coherence theory of truth. In short, all of science could be one big fat lie!

Just wanted to provide a (different) perspective from which all life is valueless, not equally valuable. 😁🤭🤯

The riddle of reincarnation: 1. I have $100 in this life. 2. I save it for my next life. 3. Go to step 1 I can never spend my $100. 🤭

😁 Sorry, not exactly an expert here.

Yes, if you're talking about abductive reasoning/argument to the best explanation. Given some info in re a particular situation/circumstance, one generates multiple hypothesis that fit with the info. However, one can't know which hypothesis is the correct one since all square with the info. That said, the hypotheses in question may entail certain observables. When these are not found, the set of hypotheses that entail these observables is considered falsified. Sorry then for the poor quality post. I hope it isn't a big deal. When I make mistakes or when others do, I comfort myself/others by saying "Even Aristotle (the father of logic) made mistakes." I like Mr. Spock! I read up on him and it seems Leonard Nimoy became so deeply involved in the character of Spock that, on many occasions where he had to make (tough) decisions, he used to ask himself "what would Spock do?" 😁

Reasonableness, things that make sense (to me/you), are endpoints of (formal) logic (applied). That's what I think anyway. I could be wrong though. Point noted nevertheless. Thank you. 🙂

Good one! ✌ Sometimes I feel like passing away! 😅

Yep, the OP has hit the bullseye. Have you seen some video games (simulations)? We can choose characters (RPGs) that fly, break through walls, cast magic spells, whathaveyou. These worlds & abilities originate in our imagination, and true, for sure, that in some world, even if only a simulation, they are possible. Any video games that have unicorns in them? There must be one! What about God? I recall playing a game, about 20 suns ago, in which you play God; the tribe you control even prays to you at regular intervals. Quite a fun idea for a game, don't you think? Let's not forget, God Mode, an option availble to players who want their character to be immune to damage, infinite ammo, and all that jazz.

The sex simple machines (ref: sextuplets) : 1. Lever 2. Wheel & Axle 3. Inclined plane 4. Pulley 5. Screw 6. Wedge What's the definition of a machine? No restrictions on comments/observations. Feel free to say anything (interesting) you want.

👍

Let'a not waste time and energy asking this question to ourselves. Ask mother nature. Does she favor a rabbit over an ant, or a human over an octopus, so on and so forth? I don't think so. We (all living things, from viruses to blue whales) are all equal in value to momma nature! To those who think nature favors humans, do bring yourself up to speed - global warming is our eviction notice.

I'm beginning to see the light (or so I think). The problem, as I see it, stems from taking an either...or approach i.e. lying is good OR bad, but NOT both. Time to violate the law of the excluded middle i.e., in this case, lying is BOTH good (for the greater good) AND bad (for having deceived). We have to allow the third alternative (a contradiction). Enter dialetheism & paraconsistent logic.

Since this is a guessing game, I'd say it suggests knowledge of Dactyloscopy/Fingerprinting. See the whorls & loops motif around what appears to be the eyes, nose, and mouth, and in the forehead region. 🤔

As pertains to logic/rationality Positives 1. Explosion of knowledge (most prominent in the sciences). 2. Systematization, generally, leading to more productivity in anything we do. Negatives 1. Wars still prevalent (failure of rationality, assuming to take up arms is always illogical) 2. The correlation coefficient between logic/rationality and goodness is zeroish. There are as many intelligent people who are good as there are intelligent people who are bad.

1. Evidence for this? Indirect. If I can, with the briefest of reflection, feel remorse, why not others too? I'm an average Joe, not a saint. 2. And relevance to the subject? Vegetarianism vs. nonvegetarianism is, at the end of the day, about ethics. The former a step forward (in the right direction), the latter just inertia (it takes time to pick up momentum). Ethics is crucial to the future of humanity and all life, for it is, all said and done, concerned with beautifying nature (bloody claws and fangs are ugly, oui?) and by "beautifying nature", I mean improving it, morally.

Buddhist ethics to the rescue (I think). Torture is permissible e.g. to make a terrorist disclose the location of a time bomb which s/he claims will kill thousands of people. However, whoever tortures the terrorist in the above scenario, will have to be punished (for torturing the terrorist). That way, we can avoid having to admit torture is acceptable (the torturer is punished) and still torture (for the greater good). 🤔

There are no nonvegetarians who don't feel some guilt, even if only momentarily, for their love of meat. Just about 30 minutes ago, while I was driving, I asked myself, "have I eaten babies?". The answer, to my dismay, is "yes"; I've eaten lamb and eggs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had this realization at some point in their lives. Believe me you, it's not a pleasant experience. Given how frequently and intensely reality assaults our sensibilities, we get used to all the pain and suffering that's around - desensitized, we think nothing of eating babies; ok animals, still babies. Ethics, the issue at the heart of veganism/vegetarianism/non-vegetarianism, is, for me, one of the many ways humans have exposed nature's deep flaws - it's red in tooth and claw, carnivory is essential for a balanced ecosystem, and so on - but we've begun to doubt that logic for a long time and things are coming to a head. This is not, as Leibniz believed, the best of all possible worlds! We can do better! Is this bad/good? Is veganism/vegetarianism a hindrance/help? 🤔

The most believable of gods are the ancient pre-monotheistic/polytheistic ones. Gods like Zeus, Ra, Odin, Krishna, were never projected as being all-good and that made them relatively more plausible given how things were/are in the world (evils of all and sundry kinds). We could always explain worldly ills like famines/wars/natural disasters as the anger of or quarrels between gods. With the birth of monotheism, God became this omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being (the OOO God) and ever since then theists have had a hard time reconciling these attributes with the real evil that exists in our world (the problem of evil). In short, the Abrahamic Yahweh seems more improbable than the Greek Zeus or the Hindu Shiva.