dimreepr

Did you ever think??? That there's a reason they didn't let you near a lab and that it might be related too, your ability to think/absorb a lesson; there's lasers in there and you'll go blind, if you look at them directly; it's for your own safety...

Indeed, so faith in their teacher's/culture, supercedes their ability to think critically...

Does it? As would an atheist... Me too. 😇 I'm not saying atheism is a religion, but most of us have to believe that our teachers are reliably informed...

I was pondering that perhaps, quantum wormholes could recirculate them into the same region of space.

Couldn't an extremely large concentration of neutrinos, for reason's unkown, explain the observations that leads to dark matter? Perhaps there are regions in space that trap's neutrinos, like a black hole does with light?

Has it solved it yet? It reminds me of this question... That pesky spectrum, here, would include "The Judean people's front, suicide squad." that would jump out in front of the car, in a gleeful attempt to make it crash into innocent Roman's, out for a days shopping... I wonder how many points for a runaway wheelchair carrying a dead pensioner/disabled mother and daughter? Not the first tangent in this topic...

Good point, in light of that then success is, getting what we need now. Nothing is eternal, not even your AI god's, success is what happens today. Every spectrum is infinite, 😉 One day, tomorrow will be the end. I think he was describing the problem with seeking 'happiness' or the word contentment was misinterpreted. Success only really has meaning, if one is content with the outcome...

No, I thought I saw a joke in my reply; luckily, the success of my joke's is not a measure of my success, as me; apologies @iNow. Isn't the top end, the continued existence of me? I see the minimum amount of success as, continuing to want to be here today. I'm not complaining, it's interesting to think of thinking as having a before and after...

Stop spoiling the party, I didn't laugh at your joke... 🧐

The obvious answer might be, something like, my continued existence or winning something over other's. The other obvious answer might be, something like, my continued validity in the eyes of other's. So the answer is clearly on spectrum between the two; which further focuses the question to: what's the minimum level of success, acceptable too both?

The tiny umbrella was an immaculate design, of a localised solar still; and it's in no way poisonous to drink pure water. 🤔 🙄

Value is only agreed mutually, me and you, me and the service provider etc. Word of mouth will do the rest, so long as it work's. As usual with human imagination, value is on a spectrum: The trivial end is what I want/desire, for instance, a sailor, who's been at sea for 6 months with only his hand for company; what percentage of his salary would he be willing to pay, for a girl? The non-trivial end is what I need, for instance, a sailor, who's been at sea for 6 months with no food and not enough water; now, what percentage of his salary would he be willing to pay, for a girl? What is a promise made of? Other than my dreams of tomorrow?

OK, let me simplify money, it's a method of exchanging two rashers of bacon for an egg or a brick, now!!! It's only value beyond now, is in our imagination; "A horse a horse my kingdom for a horse" Tomorrows choice is always good, until it's not... 😉 The difference between happiness and contentment is, you can always be content; until your not!!!

That only works, when your john thomas looks invincible, not everyone is afraid of the sight/fight.

Not really, even a bankrupt gets to eat; the true meaning of brankrupt is variable, for instance, Trump v Know body (at least know one worth talking about): the bank can't afford to foreclose on a billion, but it can make money on a poor farmer. It's literally the bank's that are bankrupt...

It's still all in the imagination though, $70K per year is WAY more than anyone actually needs; if I managed to resist the Diderot effect, I conservatively estimate that amount would last me 20 year's If we can teach people to think beyond our imagination/fear of tomorrow, then no-one would have a problem paying their taxes. Indeed...

The problem isn't money, it's what we imagine it is, for instance we imagine: That, it's a measure of one's sucess in life. That, if my money tomorrow isn't as valuable as it is today, then I've lost something. That, trinkets I have, because my neighbours don't, is valuable when they no longer covet. Take away our imagination and all it is, is a way to get what we need today.

I don't think it's a surprise they chose it for their film, it neatly sums up the bible and is exactly why the film isn't blasphemy; Jesus would have pissed himself, laughing. The point you've missed is, I understand the lessons of that culture, by applying that teaching to my culture; does that make me arrogant, maybe but only if you can provide a better explanation and I ignore it, but no more arrogant than a doctor prescribing your medicine... When Jesus 'ghost wrote' the NT he said he understood the OT not that he lived 2,000+ years ago. Stop using God as an excuse to berate what you don't understand, it's ironic that god is your bias...

Well thanks, but not the best argument/rebuttal. I enjoyed it... 😉

Wow, way to miss the point, or are you being deliberately obtuse? I think the most coherent and relevant passage in the bible is 'The sermon on the mount', if you read it and imagine the lesson is meant to be contentment; IOW if I'm content with my existence before I reach heaven, then why do I need a God? LOL OTOH, if you can't be content with life now, perhaps because that guy's got more than me and all he does is sit on his arse, it's so unfair 😡; then an imaginary friend that's gonna kick his arse, until he's in as much pain as me, can give one a little peace. Different people require different types of lesson...

Why? And as I pointed out, you can't know, explicitly, what the story teller was telling, even less what the story is "culturally" meant to convey; it's akin to reading a translated Japanese novel and then arguing with his sister, over what he meant by the word 'wogawomptamov' and how it affects the plot. The one fact we, I assume, can agree on is, God doesn't exist!!! He's just a character in a book, that's part of the narrative of a vastly different culture; that's been translated/edited to the point that we have only the vaguest idea what the book might be about; so I think it's reasonable to not include God in my hypothesis. Do you imagine you'd have the same level of certainty, in four thousand years (through multiple translations of translation's and then edited by multiple versions of Trump)!!! be honest...

Wouldn't different cultures explain that?

Understanding that good and evil is a product of our imagination, would be a start. How would you plan to avoid your imagination? I just presented a reasonable explanation of a story, in a book; after explaining the limitations of the written word.

When did I do that?

Why do you keep invoking God to support your arguments? You're an atheist, right? Isn't it more likely, given they're human (much like us), that the story is about our knowledge of tomorrow and how that can spoil our appreciation of today, compared to naked animal's who don't care about tomorrow and enjoy the today their faced with. The point is, neither of us can know what they were thinking, despite the book... All we can rely on is reasoned argument's, based on who we are today.