Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s

[Guest Rob]

*Nickelback's "If today was your last day" plays*

[Zygimantas]

*Nickelback's "If today was your last day" plays*

Exactly, and I really don't think I would go doing very immoral type things on my last day either. I just find it interesting how when people are close to death they value life more, and try to enjoy every day. But when they are not dying they waste their time bored, complaining and in sorrow.

[Guest Rob]

Yeah, I agree.

 

Question for people on the thread: If you found out you were going to die tomorrow, and nobody else knew...what would you do?

[Zygimantas]

Yeah, I agree.

 

Question for people on the thread: If you found out you were going to die tomorrow, and nobody else knew...what would you do?

I really don't think that I would do anything too abnormal. I would probably just try to go and have some good conversations with as many of my friends and family as I can. :)

[RpgGamer]

person[a] has surgery preformed on them, where their brain is split directly down the corpus callosum, but both halves retain continuity of the original's psychology [all thoughts, memories, sensations, characteristics, mannerisms, and personality traits] THEN one half of the brain is transplanted into a body that is taken from the same DNA as person[a] so that person[a] now has half a brain and person has the other half.

 

Which is the original identity?

 

Both, neither, [a] or ?

[Assume Nothing]

Is law based on morality, or is morality based on law?

[Zierro]

Some people believe things to be immoral or detrimental simply because it is a law. I have heard the argument, "Well, the government made it illegal so there obviously has to be something wrong with it!" Then there are laws that sprout up because popular opinion deems something as immoral.

 

I believe morals came first though. What other motivating factors are there for establishing official guidelines other than discouraging "wrong" behavior?

[Dupin]

Does economic downturn inhibit or encourage deep thought? Is recession necessary for a nation? What about war?

[Zygimantas]

Does economic downturn inhibit or encourage deep thought? Is recession necessary for a nation? What about war?

What do you mean by deep thought? And war is not necessary by any means, but of course it occurs all the time because people are fearful. Overcome fear, and you overcome war and violence.

[Dupin]

Does economic downturn inhibit or encourage deep thought? Is recession necessary for a nation? What about war?

What do you mean by deep thought?

Intellectual advancement. Cultural movements. It's really open for interpretation, as many movements may have been negative, but it's often from times of turmoil that we see the most important ideas and people emerge.

And war is not necessary by any means

I'll disprove when I get home, if nobody else has.

[The_Gabe]

Does economic downturn inhibit or encourage deep thought? Is recession necessary for a nation? What about war?

What do you mean by deep thought?

Intellectual advancement. Cultural movements. It's really open for interpretation, as many movements may have been negative, but it's often from times of turmoil that we see the most important ideas and people emerge.

And war is not necessary by any means

I'll disprove when I get home, if nobody else has.

 

War is a necessity to solve issues that cannot be solved diplomatically.

[Shangdi]

person[a] has surgery preformed on them, where their brain is split directly down the corpus callosum, but both halves retain continuity of the original's psychology [all thoughts, memories, sensations, characteristics, mannerisms, and personality traits] THEN one half of the brain is transplanted into a body that is taken from the same DNA as person[a] so that person[a] now has half a brain and person has the other half.

 

Which is the original identity?

 

Both, neither, [a] or ?

 

Well parts of your brain function on different things. And a division down the middle has some bad results, like someone whos brain is split like that just by being born with a split brain, is borderline [developmentally delayed]ed. He can function but cant tell that bad breath makes people not wanna talk to him, or not able to know that LOUD VOICES MEAN ANGREEEEHHH, and a whole bunch of other problems.

 

I think even if the person didnt die in the surgery they would be a vegetable so neither. Although total brain transplants have been done on monkeys and they have survived. If that was a human im sure your sense of self would transfer over with you. I wonder how your brain would deal with odd signals, like a male brain transplanted to a female body, or something?

 

 

On an even broader question, I wonder how our brain would deal with being implanted into a cyborg body, that may have additional legs and arms a human wouldnt have. Good question, what is our brains capable of? Wish some neuro scientists were in here :P

I read somewhere that if you gain a new part or w/e, your brain will make a new part to handle it (specialize a cluster of neurons or something), but I'm not sure. Also, there's a limited amount of neurons availibe so it probably can't go on forever.

[Zygimantas]

Does economic downturn inhibit or encourage deep thought? Is recession necessary for a nation? What about war?

What do you mean by deep thought?

Intellectual advancement. Cultural movements. It's really open for interpretation, as many movements may have been negative, but it's often from times of turmoil that we see the most important ideas and people emerge.

And war is not necessary by any means

I'll disprove when I get home, if nobody else has.

 

War is a necessity to solve issues that cannot be solved diplomatically.

Times of crisis make more people aware of problems, therefore change often arises from those times. Is change necessary? I don't know, but its going to happen anyway, everything changes.

 

 

War never solves anything in the long run, it just brings about more fear and hate which later leads to even more violence. Of course war is going to seem like a necessity then.

[Zygimantas]

Does economic downturn inhibit or encourage deep thought? Is recession necessary for a nation? What about war?

What do you mean by deep thought?

Intellectual advancement. Cultural movements. It's really open for interpretation, as many movements may have been negative, but it's often from times of turmoil that we see the most important ideas and people emerge.

And war is not necessary by any means

I'll disprove when I get home, if nobody else has.

 

War is a necessity to solve issues that cannot be solved diplomatically.

 

What is the cause of war?

 

Either to steal someone's land - so 1.) money, 2.) power are some causes with wanting land

 

Or

 

To force an ideology on them - so 3.) religion 4.) government

 

or

 

Retribution for an attack - 5.) honor 6.) retribution

 

Generally with 1 or 2 there is an aggressor country and a victim country. With 3 and 4 these produce very violent wars as both sides desperately want to force their ideology on the other. And with 5 or 6 either the aggressive country acted with error or was attacking to provoke a war usually for reasons 1 or 2.

 

With 1 and 2 - diplomacy is impossible if the aggressive country wants to attack.

With 3 and 4 - diplomacy is also impossible and these tend to be very violent wars.

With 5 and 6 - diplomacy is possible but only if the victim country is willing to accept it.

 

But this sums up all the reasons why we have wars on the top of my head

And none of that is really necessary, just the way that many humans think make things like money, power and forcing ideologies seem necessary. In reality they are not, not everyone seems to want to see that though. Oh well.

[Zygimantas]

I dont find any of these to be good reasons for war, but I was listing all the reasons war does happen. Generally its summed up to either taking something from someone, forcing an ideology on someone, or retribution for an attack.

 

In my personal opinion I think without a state that could amass troops wars would only involve those directly involved and would affect 10's of people instead of 1000's or millions

I like your idea about a stateless society, but I still think that if humans don't change how they think at their core then no matter what political system we have there will be much suffering and violence in the world like there is now.

[Dupin]

I think you guys misunderstood my question when I asked about war. I was mainly thinking of the benefits for the agressive country and the culture. The examples I have in mind are the wars conducted by the US during the Cold War and, more recently, in the Middle East.

 

-War is (questionably) beneficial to the economy

-Many important cultural movements occur as a reaction to (or are influenced by) wars

Interesting. It may have been in an older version. I also remember hearing somewhere that it was a pear tree.

 

Someone on the Wikileak thread said something along the lines of "who watches the watchers" and if the answer is no one then they will eventually grow to abuse their power.

That was me.

 

The problem being that its unreasonable to expect people to change. However I feel a stateless society with infinite checks and balances (via competition) would be the only way to prevent suffering and violence.

I think that if no one is given absolute power on anything then they would not have the potential to abuse it.

 

Thus the problem is solved without human nature needing to change.

The problem with your idea is that it isn't possible for no-one to have power. In a society powered purely by competition, the large corporations dominate, and eventually become government. You also face the possiblity of mob rule. Drugs are an excellent way to make money and drug trade naturally leads to the formation of cartels focused around self-government and led by one especially powerful rich guy. Humans also have a tendency to form government. If there is no legal, open gov't, an illegal one will be created.

 

Mexico is the perfect example. Parts of it are essentially ruled by the cartels, which, contrary to what the US gov't would like you to think, fulfilled many of the positive aspects of goverment.

[Giordano]

It's not. It was a pomegranate.

 

[hide=Corporate America says so]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EJTe14yPfo[/hide]

[Dupin]

The problem being that its unreasonable to expect people to change. However I feel a stateless society with infinite checks and balances (via competition) would be the only way to prevent suffering and violence.

I think that if no one is given absolute power on anything then they would not have the potential to abuse it.

 

Thus the problem is solved without human nature needing to change.

The problem with your idea is that it isn't possible for no-one to have power. In a society powered purely by competition, the large corporations dominate, and eventually become government. You also face the possiblity of mob rule. Drugs are an excellent way to make money and drug trade naturally leads to the formation of cartels focused around self-government and led by one especially powerful rich guy. Humans also have a tendency to form government. If there is no legal, open gov't, an illegal one will be created.

 

Mexico is the perfect example. Parts of it are essentially ruled by the cartels, which, contrary to what the US gov't would like you to think, fulfilled many of the positive aspects of goverment.

 

Its only mob rule if the people are not able to escape their leadership. If the leadership isnt geographically based you can simply join another police protection agency that has its own sets of laws if the one near you is oppresive, and you have to be allowed to do so even if you are a renter and the land owner supports one agency.

 

This system worked in both medieval ireland and iceland.

 

That would not be mob rule and the natural elite would have power ~ only if they please their customers. A cartel does not need to please its customers and it can simply tell them fight for me or I will kill your family.

Well, no. It is now a government by the "natural elite" who would have power, regardless of whether or not they please their customers. Democracy ensures that the gov't pleases its customers.

[Dupin]

The problem being that its unreasonable to expect people to change. However I feel a stateless society with infinite checks and balances (via competition) would be the only way to prevent suffering and violence.

I think that if no one is given absolute power on anything then they would not have the potential to abuse it.

 

Thus the problem is solved without human nature needing to change.

The problem with your idea is that it isn't possible for no-one to have power. In a society powered purely by competition, the large corporations dominate, and eventually become government. You also face the possiblity of mob rule. Drugs are an excellent way to make money and drug trade naturally leads to the formation of cartels focused around self-government and led by one especially powerful rich guy. Humans also have a tendency to form government. If there is no legal, open gov't, an illegal one will be created.

 

Mexico is the perfect example. Parts of it are essentially ruled by the cartels, which, contrary to what the US gov't would like you to think, fulfilled many of the positive aspects of goverment.

 

Its only mob rule if the people are not able to escape their leadership. If the leadership isnt geographically based you can simply join another police protection agency that has its own sets of laws if the one near you is oppresive, and you have to be allowed to do so even if you are a renter and the land owner supports one agency.

 

This system worked in both medieval ireland and iceland.

 

That would not be mob rule and the natural elite would have power ~ only if they please their customers. A cartel does not need to please its customers and it can simply tell them fight for me or I will kill your family.

Well, no. It is now a government by the "natural elite" who would have power, regardless of whether or not they please their customers. Democracy ensures that the gov't pleases its customers.

 

Democracy is the epitome of mob absolutism. 50.000000001% of the population can vote to fleece 49.999999999% of the population.

 

Democracys are a terrible form of government so much so that even the founding fathers of America said they would rather have a king then a democracy, ideally a republic is supposed to solve the problems of democracies however the problem with a republic is that elections are expensive to win so the rich who can pay for a politicians election has more power then the poor. The checks and balances and the limits on government expansion (the constitution) did not take into account issues 100's of years later and are nearly impossible to change, thus giving the government more power to vote itself more power - which it has been doing from day 1.

 

How these agencies are different is they are depending on their subscribers to have power and without a geographic monopoly they are dependent on pleasing their custom to keep them. The only accountability a politician of a republic has is he could be voted out if he is unpopular, and replaced by someone else who is likely very similar to he is.

Well, sure. Sometimes. But in a society dominated by "competition", the rich rule without regulation. Also, people can't just get up and leave if they don't like a certain government. Neither figuratively nor literally.

[Zierro]

Could a banana be more intelligent than us, and the reason we have not observed this is because we are lacking the necessary intellectual ability or that the banana is so smart that it can give us the illusion that it's non-sentient?

[Zygimantas]

Could a banana be more intelligent than us, and the reason we have not observed this is because we are lacking the necessary intellectual ability or that the banana is so smart that it can give us the illusion that it's non-sentient?

yes. But intelligence is just an illusion really.

[Zygimantas]

I think that when you look at humans 20,000 years ago you will see that they were in stateless societies. But naturally, when technology allowed them to do so, humans made allies and began to live in larger groups for efficiency, and civilizations and organized governments began to form. If we were in a stateless society right now then the same process would occur again. People are greedy, if you can't change that then a stateless society will not last.

[Dupin]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

[Zygimantas]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

What if the monopoly does not raise its prices and provides quality goods?

[Dupin]

When there is no legal government (or it is ineffective), and illegal one will form.

 

Also:

1) You have money.

2) You go to the store, and see two products. One costs more, but fits your standards. The other is cheap but doesn't.

3) You buy the former.

4) The majority of people who enter the store either do not have those standards or do not have that money. Your product goes out of business.

5) You now have no option but to buy the latter product, which now has a monopoly on sales and can raise its prices however it likes.

6) You now have little money. You must sacrifice your standards to buy any new products which are cheaper.

7) Monopolies riegn and the low prices are the best prices. Large corporations take control of the economy.

8) Eventually, a corporation with no limits would be powerful enough to control your life. This is illegal government.

What if the monopoly does not raise its prices and provides quality goods?

Self-interest and other less greed-oriented motives explain that a monopoly will normally result in raising prices and/or poor goods, simply because it can. Sure, it's possible that the steak manufacturers will provide good steak at a good price, but the steak sauce manufacturers may have other ideas.

 

Corruption is a result of human nature, not of a specific system of government.