DavidWahl

You're right. I assumed a hypothetical scenario where I’d be completely alone and wouldn’t have to deal with others competing for resources, which isn’t very realistic. I strongly agree that, since we benefit from society, we have some responsibility toward it. But contribution doesn’t have to be extraordinary in order to be meaningful. Everyday participation like following rules already sustains society in a fundamental way. For example, properly disposing trash keeps the public clean, activities like buying food ensures economic exchange and talking to my neighbors sustain social cohesion. Yes, while some individuals contribute more actively, a functioning society also depends on ordinary and consistent participation from everyone. Having the time and resources to act isn’t mere comfort, it’s what makes freedom meaningful in practice. They are precursors and without these conditions, freedom only exists in principle but cannot be exercised. Society makes freedom functionally real. Besides, who thinks doing mathematics is comfort? It can be fulfilling to some while others prefer the military than having to succumb to such intellectually demanding activities. A society that allows people the time and space to think, create and explore ideas is exactly the kind of society that sustains and expands its own freedom. It’s not wise to dismiss this kind of use of time as merely ‘comfort’. I see that your vision of a utopia focuses on abundance of comfort such as food, drink and pleasure. You are blurring the lines between comfort and freedom trying to make freedom seem like indulgence. How about we shift our focus from indulgence and focus more on creating a society that is intellectually vibrant, artistically rich, flexible and provides a variety of meaningful opportunities rather than simply satisfying immediate desires? If some our freedom is already constrained by how society shapes us, why not design a society that is mature enough to engage with freedom without abusing it? This stupid "as long as it's not illegal" rhetoric is dangerous. I believe a healthy society is where both freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

If I understand your question correctly, I believe it concerns the subject of free will and for personal reasons, I prefer not to engage with that topic right now. That being said, I think we all recognize that freedom and free will, though closely related, are still distinct notions. Oftentimes, people conflate the two. I see freedom as largely external. It is a condition in which choices are available and we can act on them (regardless of whether those choices are truly our own). A society that provides maximal opportunities for an individual or group is therefore a society with the most freedom. By this measure, I can say with certainty that I have far more freedom than a prisoner because I lack the external constraints they face. In this context, questions about free will do not affect the reality of practical freedom.

I completely agree with you on this. Freedom is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern society. If I wanted to be a free man, I could abandon society entirely and live alone in some distant land. But then I would spend more of my life worrying about survival than actually enjoying that freedom. I would likely devote most of my time to finding or growing food, whereas in society I can use that time to think, do mathematics, or even watch football. Freedom is meaningful only when one has the time and resources to exercise it. Things like refraining from peeing by the side of the road are small sacrifices we make that do not meaningfully affect our broader conception of freedom.

That's very plausible, though the only thing that keeps me a bit skeptical is the olfactory part. Based on my limited understanding, one definite takeaway is that the thalamus seems deeply involved in maintaining the coherence of conscious experience. It's likely, what they would say, the conductor behind the illusion of unity and continuity of subjective experience.

From what I’ve read so far, it seems like you guys are quite convinced that the thalamus is the primary source of consciousness, not just a contributing part. That’s what I meant by the phrase "centre of consciousness" (figuratively). It also seems like the terms "central role" and "centre of consciousness" are being used interchangeably here, even though they convey very different ideas.

@TheVat is right. I see that the usage of the word in this case can be easily misleading if you misinterpret the context. I'm pretty sure the word "central" simply means critical or key here. This shouldn't be confused as it being the "centre of consciousness". The article doesn't explicitly state that the thalamus is the centre.

What will I be rewarded with by devoting my life to Nothingness? Will my life come to nothing?

I see. Anyways, thank you for sharing this. This is soulful and achingly poetic, enough to make a grown man cry. Now I'm sad.

That's like watching the child you raised grow up and die. Do think there's any chance that a chunk of those manuals are still lying somewhere? If I were you, I would've retrieved anything that was left of them and kept it to myself as souvenir...

Wow, you're an all rounder, I see. I can barely manage to keep up with one interest. That must've been painful to witness...

Yes. Do you happened to be kvian? I was a kvian. It's baffling to see that you're already engaged in advanced ideas at such a young age.

Yes, sorry. I vaguely remembered your name when you introduced yourself.

Hi Kulraj I'm 20 years old. It's refreshing to see someone from my country that share similar interests.

I agree that once actual harm has occurred, it makes sense for traits like ASPD to be considered in sentencing or parole. But I’m still troubled by the question: What do we do when someone shows deeply concerning signs before any actual harm is done? There was a recent case of a teenage boy who created horrifying, disturbing drawings fantasising about murder and later went on to actually murder someone. His father noticed the signs prior to the event but didn’t act likely out of fear of overreacting. Was it right for society to wait? As @studiot also suggested, this issue is far more complex and nuanced than it may first appear. It runs deeper into society. It's not as simple as saying, 'Act only after harm is done,' or 'Don't criminalize traits.' We're dealing with difficult questions now about how to respond to warning signs that don’t yet qualify as crimes but may indicate serious risk. I'm not in favor of pre-crime punishment either but I believe we should at least have a preventive system that allows for early support or intervention when someone shows credible signs of dangerous intent. That way we could protect others without criminalizing mental illness. This is the grey area I believe we need to take seriously.

But there's a serious ethical dilemma here. Do we wait for violence to occur before we act even when we strongly suspect it’s coming? If we always wait until someone is harmed, we risk failing the victims who could've been saved, the damage is irreversible. Let's say there weren't any clear and early warning signs like killing the neighbor's dog, then who gets to decide what counts as a threat? How do we go about resolving this without crossing into the line of punishing someone for having a mental illness?