The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Y111
About
User Name: Y111
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Sunday, June 25, 2017
Last Visit: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:32:01 AM
Number of Posts: 288
[0.03% of all post / 0.50 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 2:32:01 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
You said the good and the bad are relative notions. How come you call it "The only one that we know to exist."?

The only goodness that we know to exist is the relative one. We don't know the absolute goodness, do we?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It's the other way around. Human society is in flux because it doesn't know absolute things.

Either way. Everything is in flux, so it's no wonder that our notion of goodness is too.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
Moral standards can't exist without us knowing what is good and what is bad.

But they exist even though we don't know the absolute good and bad. This is a fact. Apparently those absolutes are not necessary for the existence of moral standards.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It's not about what you know, it's about what you can prove. You can prove that 2+2 is 4.

Proving is deriving something from something else using logic. Since all that we know is relative, I am not sure we can prove anything absolute even theoretically. We know some facts, but not all facts. Maybe there is a place in the universe where 2+2=5 because if you put 2 and 2 things together, they turn into 5. To people living there it would be natural and logical.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
You don't see many things, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

It doesn't mean they do exist either. It's a bit silly to live in an imaginary world. If I don't see anyone under my bed, I conclude there is nobody there. I think it's reasonable until I have some evidence to the contrary.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
You seem to fail to see the difference between something one really wants to do and something one does for want of anything better.

There is always something better, at least in your imagination. However, if you didn't want to come here, you wouldn't. Real is what manifests itself. Learning a language is a real lot of time and effort, and you have to really want to learn it in order to succeed.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It's like an animal way of existence. It feels like it click well with you approach to reality.

We are animals, whether you like it or not. My approach to reality is to try to avoid denying it as much as possible. Is yours the opposite?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I don't know. Maybe we are not alone. Maybe it depends on a person. But this reality is too complicated to be a result of accident.

Or maybe it's not too complicated. Who can know for sure? Nobody has absolute knowledge. Besides, you said above that it's not about knowing but about proving. Can you prove it's too complicated?
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 2:31:55 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If goodness changes depending on who measures it then what kind of goodness is that?

The only one that we know to exist. The only one that affects our lives. That it's in flux is only logical because human society is in flux, and it serves its needs.

Whereas the abstraction of absolute goodness seems to be no more than a toy for an idle mind. Or an excuse for someone who doesn't want to abide by the existing moral standards.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If you consider something good and someone else considers the same bad then neither of you knows what is good and what is bad.

Then, if I think that 2+2=4 and you think that 2+2=5, neither of us knows the correct sum. Right? :)

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I am pretty sure there must be some absolute goodness which doesn't change according to man's desire.

Unless you can find it, it's pretty useless. Maybe there is also an absolute food somewhere but people get hungry here and now, so they use the food that is at hand, and it works pretty well.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
According to your approach it sounds as you are (a human being) to decide what it good and what is bad.

Yes, why not? Who else? I don't see anyone around except other human beings. Either we agree to play by the rules that exist or change them sooner or later. If some god arrives, then he may decide what is good, but until then we will do on our own.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If every person is a zero then collecting ten zeros won't add up anything because ten by zero is still zero.

So you see no difference between, for example, a pile of car parts and a car? I was talking about people who are in relations with one another and not a disparate collection of random individuals.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I didn't say in ITSELF, I said in ONESELF.

Yes, so what? My point is you can't extract the meaning of a word from the word itself or the meaning of a life from the life itself. I.e. if you take either of them in isolation. Meaning is relative.

With a person it's more tricky because other people live in our mind. Even if you stay alone you will think of them, talk to them and imagine their reaction to your actions and their opinion about yourself. Consciously or unconsciously.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
I am not sure how it's possible to sincerely value transitory things. How it's possible to appreciate the vapor which is our life.

But it's clear that you value at least this forum and the English language, even though they are both transitory. How do you manage to do that?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
The real questions remains: What did mankind come to existence for?

As far as it concerns us and not our imaginary creator, the answer is obvious: to be born, to live and to die. Even if there is a creator, he or she obviously doesn't expect any more from us. Otherwise we wouldn't have been left alone.
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 9:09:38 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
It depends on the notion in case. If you could measure goodness or badness in meters it wouldn't be vague. But we don't know how to measure morality.

Then I don't quite understand what you mean by 'vague' here. Relative means different from different points of view. Even if we could measure goodness in meters, it would be different depending on who measures it, just like location. Your goodness would be 5 meters from my point of view and 10 meters from someone else's. So, what would be your goodness? How would meters help here?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
If we don't mean anything when alone then our meaningless is even enhanced when we are assembled. The more of us gathered the more meaningless we are in that case.

How can you be more meaningless, I wonder? :) A less than zero meaning is definitely beyond my comprehension, so I don't really know how to answer this. Perhaps you could clarify your thought?

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
All the meaning (of life) gains its validity only inside oneself. The outward world is less important than your inner one. You can't please the world you can please only yourself.

Please? Again I must admit I don't understand you. Meaning is definitely relative. The same word, for example, means different things in different languages. How can it gain its meaning inside itself? Likewise a human being means not one and the same thing in different societies. You may be a king in one and a slave in another. Those are very different meanings.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
What is "to value your existence"? It's simply a disappearing emotion.

Everything is transitory. But it makes a big difference whether your life is valued by the people you live with or not.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:

The problem is that we don't know what we should know and feel. And we don't know what our life is and why we were materialized here and what it's all about.


You were materialized here because your parents wanted to make a child, I guess. And now it seems to be all about finding out what you should know and feel. :) OK, suppose someone told you that, what next? Would you say "Yes, sir!" and obey the order?
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2019 5:29:06 AM
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
However, I want to point to the vagueness of the very concept of THE GOOD and THE BAD. What is good? What is bad? They are so relative.

But relative doesn't mean vague. If you are 5 meters away from me, it's your relative location, but is it vague? Not at all. The fact that all locations are relative doesn't make the notion vague.

Ivan Fadeev wrote:
We don't know absolute goodness or badness.

Why would you need this absolute? Maybe because you feel that your good not being the same as that of others separates you from them, and this feeling is naturally disturbing to a human, since we are so social. We don't mean anything if alone. Meaning is also relative. Your life is truly meaningful only if it means something to a sufficient number of others, not just to yourself.

This meaning to yourself is a tricky concept. What is your location relative to yourself? It doesn't make any sense. Why should your meaning to yourself make it, then?

We can't deceive our nature, and our nature is to be a member of a tribe that we care about and that cares about us. Your value is zero if nobody wants you. Like or dislike it, but I don't think you can escape it. The more people there are who value your existence, the more value it will have to you.

Maybe the problem is there are too many others now. Only a tiny fraction of them know about our existence and even fewer care about it. There are just too many aliens around. In these circumstances we can't help feeling how little we matter to the huge tribe we now live in.
Topic: Why Can’t the World’s Greatest Minds Solve the Mystery of Consciousness?
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2019 1:16:11 PM
FounDit wrote:
The question is why do we seem to have a better development of it than any other creature?

The first thing that comes to mind is that we are more social. We need to know our thoughts and feelings to be able to tell others about them. Or not tell if it's better for better relationships. So I think this light inside us is for the benefit of society. A human being is a part, not a whole. Can we understand why the wheel is round if we look at it in isolation? Its function determines its shape. The primary function of a human being is collaboration with the other members of a tribe for this tribe's survival.
Topic: 'Hand wounded' Vs. 'Wounded hand'
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:27:56 AM
Audiendus wrote:
I cannot give you a reason why "cut" and "split" work differently. That is just the way the language is used.

By the way, it is not specific to English. In our language I see the same difference. And even the metaphorical use of 'broken' is similar.
Topic: Opus 2 - Tea and Socialism - Nordic Socialism - Need knowledgeable help here
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 4:20:07 AM
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
And with this idea of nationalisation, the first practical question would be - how far would you want this nationalisation to go?

As far as necessary to solve the problem. I don't have a more specific answer at the moment. A socialist government can be corrupt too, of course, but I was only speaking about this particular problem. Why would it work worse here?

If you have another solution in mind, you are welcome to present it. What else could, at least theoretically, work? How are you going to persuade the fat cats to share their capitals with the rest of the people?

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I think we should go by careful and well calculated steps. Radical solutions - no, they always do much harm under seemingly good pretexts.

Maybe it will happen in a natural way. Workers are also consumers. With more and more of them losing their jobs, it will become harder and harder for you to sell your product, which will lead you to production cuts and firing still more employees, and so on. So your capital will get less and less profitable, apparently... And will cost less. Hmm... Imagine that in the end you have a lot of robots and nobody to buy what they produce. Will the robots themselves cost anything then? Maybe you will be glad to give them up to the government just to get rid of them. :)
Topic: Opus 2 - Tea and Socialism - Nordic Socialism - Need knowledgeable help here
Posted: Monday, December 24, 2018 11:49:54 AM
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
So I do not see any threat from technological advances. Where I do see a great threat though is that other thing that you mentioned - concentration of political and economic power in hands of a bunch of mfkers

But those are not two separate problems in my posts above but one. I see the advance of technology as a threat in connection with the concentration of capital, not by itself. You have admitted that you don't know how to reverse this process, only think that it can be slowed down by the elimination of corruption (is this even possible?).

The only workable solution that I can see for now is nationalization. In a socialist country technology will naturally serve everyone because it will belong to all. As long as it belongs to certain individuals, it will serve you only if this is profitable to those individuals. If you have something they need or if you can do something their robots can't. With the advance of robots it will become more and more difficult.

Robots will be much cheaper. Just compare the time necessary to grow a human and to make a robot. To teach a human and to program a robot. Once you have a working program, you can install it on as many robots as you need. Can you do the same with a skill, knowledge or experience acquired by a human? No. You can't extract it from his head and insert in the heads of others, you have to spend as much time teaching them as you spent on the first one (and the same result is not guaranteed). After being taught they will have to practice for as long as the first one has before they attain a similar level of mastery.

So it looks like a human worker will be like a spade made of gold. Much more expensive and much less durable.
Topic: Opus 2 - Tea and Socialism - Nordic Socialism - Need knowledgeable help here
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2018 3:32:43 AM
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Then, even when and if robots take over most of the manufacturing jobs, there will still be quite a job to do for humans: somebody has to design those robots, service them, "tell" them what to do and oversee their operations.

We shouldn't overestimate the number of such jobs. A robot can work 24 hours 7 days a week. That is as much as 4 human workers. So 10 robots can replace at least 40 humans. Perhaps one of them can get the job of supervising those 10 robots. The other 39 will have to go out. A rather grim ratio, I must say.

EDIT: Oh, it didn't occur to me that robots working 24/7 might have to be supervised also 24/7. Then 4 humans stay, 36 go. That's definitely better but still not very good.
Topic: Opus 2 - Tea and Socialism - Nordic Socialism - Need knowledgeable help here
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:15:40 PM
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
(ii) more even distribution of property - f. all those "oligarchs"

I agree, but how do we achieve it? So far it's been going in the opposite direction. The rich are getting richer. This is the essense of capitalism, I think. If you are successful, your capital grows. You take up more and more of the market. So in the end there are only you and a crowd of singers, dancers and painters. ;)

What measures can you think of to reverse this trend? Expropriation of the expropriators? :) Do you see any legal ground for that (worldwide, not just in Russia)? Or are you thinking about some kind of revolution?

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.