The innovation of Nintendo is the roots 4 the holodeck tree

[Kelly Jones]

I try to.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kelly,

So which is it? Do you place every point in relation to the largest context (everything), or do you not bother justifying every point in relation to that context?

Just like everyone else, I justify my points in relation to what I know.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

The very nature of mindless fun is to block out all thought and negate the possibility to discovering mitigating circumstances.

I disagree. Have you ever been watching a movie and thought to yourself that you really should be doing other things? It seems then that even well engaging in what I carelessly termed "mindless" fun one can be quite mindful of mitigating circumstances. I'd argue that a fella has already made a value judgment when he decides to play a game or whatnot. One can easily justify fun activities on the premise that life has no fixed purpose, and thus it seems that we should try to enjoy it. Obviously, it's taken as an unspoken axiom in such a comment that one should still regulate their life by ethical considerations yadda yadda yadda. Like I said in a previous post, all stated fact is more-or-less context dependent to the point where we could add nigh-endless addendums to any given statement without ensuring that it's foundational axioms are correctly identified. I find that if I agree with someone's conclusion, and they don't provide their premise for that conclusion, it's better to simply assume that their premise is valid, rather then attacking whatever possible invalid premise they might possibly be working off of.

I suppose my main point is that everything we do has consequences and there is really no such thing as harmless behaviour. Our every action, big or small, has positive and negative consequences, and the thoughtful, responsible person is obliged to be aware of them.

I personally don't filter everything through a positive/negative dichotomy like that, but such is a matter of personal taste. For me, the positive or negative ethical consequences of, say, choosing macaroni over fettucini are so trivial that the very act of considering of such things would be negative, in that they'd waste time that could be spent consuming the delicious fettucini (which is quite obviously the superior choice). Although, as I've said, such things are a matter of personal taste. For me, the decision of whether to play Second Life or post at Genius forums is ethically trivial. I don't play Second Life, as such games don't hold a lot of personal appeal to me, but I think you get what I'm saying. Nevertheless, I have no problem with discussing such things on a philosophy forum, and am in fact doing just that. Furthermore, the point at which a person satisfies themselves in the fact they've given the appropriate ethical consideration to whatever choice they make is as ultimately logically indeterminate - when considered outside of personal passions - as ethics themselves are.

I apologize if my comment to Kelly was a bit overly snide. Then again, she does like to say that philosophy isn't for the weak of heart or some such. I imagine that she must then be tough enough to chin up and laugh it off. I know that my personal quality of life wouldn't be improved by pondering if every activity I engaged in could be considered "boring and soulless" by someone. In fact, I generally just assume that any activity I engage in could be condemned on such grounds.

[DHodges]

The pleasure in computer rape and killing is a case of experiencing vicariously the pleasure of real rape and killing.

There are plenty of games with first-person killing. (e.g., Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Postal...) I wasn't aware of rape games, but a quick Google search reveals that they do exist, and are apparently more popular in Japan. I guess that's not too surprising.

Perhaps there is some innate drive people have, that takes pleasure in killing, and these video games are kind of like a cat playing with a toy mouse, making it squeek. Certainly, throughout human history, there has been hunting and warfare. It seems like there would be a survival advantage to enjoying such things.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

DHodges,

Perhaps there is some innate drive people have, that takes pleasure in killing, and these video games are kind of like a cat playing with a toy mouse, making it squeek. Certainly, throughout human history, there has been hunting and warfare. It seems like there would be a survival advantage to enjoying such things.

I tend to play violent games like Half-life on occasion. I don't doubt that some people play such games for the thrill of killing, but I personally enjoy such games because of the thrill of trying not to get killed. Obviously, I'd never like to be placed in a situation where everyone was trying to kill me in real life, but I do enjoy a muted version of that feeling in a simulated situation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Am I the only one here that likes Mah Jongg?

[Kelly Jones]

The ironic thing about ExpectantlyIronic, and a few others on the Genius Forum, is that he doesn't realise how deeply attached and passionate he is to being boring, soulless, careless, and trivial.

That sort of mindstate claims "I don't care about anything, nothing's that important to me."

The real truth of the matter, is a hawk-like and avid guardianship over keeping things as indecisive and "unchallenging" as possible. Yet, how eager it is, to challenge others to preserve this comfort zone.

What a comedy.

It's really obvious here:

I'd argue that a fella has already made a value judgment when he decides to play a game or whatnot.

and then

One can easily justify fun activities on the premise that life has no fixed purpose, and thus it seems that we should try to enjoy it.

His value system just boils down to "I don't want to be rational if it means i don't get to be irrational".

That's why fun is so important to him. Just wants to keep finding all the ways mindlessness can be hypocritically defined as mindfulness.....

Like I said in a previous post, all stated fact is more-or-less context dependent to the point where we could add nigh-endless addendums to any given statement without ensuring that it's foundational axioms are correctly identified.

Have you changed your mind? Do you relate all things to an absolute context?

I know that my personal quality of life wouldn't be improved by pondering if every activity I engaged in could be considered "boring and soulless" by someone. In fact, I generally just assume that any activity I engage in could be condemned on such grounds.

Somewhere along the line, i think you started to take pride in having a bad conscience.

Wonder where that started. Parents slicing off all "tall poppy" tendrils? Got more love and attention from being a no-hoper? Witnessed the most admired role model lying? Got a well-paid job for toeing the line?


.

[Kelly Jones]

I wonder how much love a person who values consciousness needs.

Something may seem too soft, or too harsh, depending on this.

.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kelly,

I think you're getting a little off topic here. You should probably start a new thread to discuss me and my secret thoughts and hidden motivations. You could call it "ExpectantlyIronic: Awesome dude or Lamer n00b?" I'd unfortunately have to refrain from posting in it, as I already know all the crazy contents of my head, heart, and liver; which would spoil all the fun of your speculating.

Have you changed your mind? Do you relate all things to an absolute context?

I haven't changed my mind about anything. I still don't see any way to break through the subjective realm of my experience to get at an absolute sort-of objective reality.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic,

DQ: The very nature of mindless fun is to block out all thought and negate the possibility to discovering mitigating circumstances.

EI: I disagree. Have you ever been watching a movie and thought to yourself that you really should be doing other things?

We can call this "not quite mindless fun", an inferior attainment, tainted with traces of disturbing thought, falling short of the supremely blissful level of "complete mindless fun".

But I dare say some good alcohol and drugs should be able fix that, or an arm around one's girlfriend or wife. There are plenty of ways to obliterate all those unpleasant concerns about mitigating circumstances, and the human race makes full use of them.

It seems then that even well engaging in what I carelessly termed "mindless" fun one can be quite mindful of mitigating circumstances.

If Nature decides to intrude into the heavenly bliss of one's mindless fun and forces one, kicking and screaming, to consider mitigating circumstances, then sure.

I'd argue that a fella has already made a value judgment when he decides to play a game or whatnot. One can easily justify fun activities on the premise that life has no fixed purpose, and thus it seems that we should try to enjoy it. Obviously, it's taken as an unspoken axiom in such a comment that one should still regulate their life by ethical considerations yadda yadda yadda.

Well, this happens automatically from the values we adopt in life. A person's ethics are a natural function of his values.

For example, since I value wisdom (i.e. consciousness of truth) above all else, my sense of ethics centers itself around this value. In essence, whatever promotes wisdom is "good", and whatever hinders it is "bad". This is why I consider, say, rationality and individualism to be "good", and fundamentalist Christianity and academic philosophy to be "bad".

This is how everyone functions. Everyone has their own sense of ethics, and this, in turn, is because everyone has values.

Like I said in a previous post, all stated fact is more-or-less context dependent to the point where we could add nigh-endless addendums to any given statement without ensuring that it's foundational axioms are correctly identified.

This is obviously false, given that this particular fact alone isn't context-dependent. Indeed, you even present it as a non-contextual fact - i.e. as a universal fact which embraces all contexts. So we can dismiss this sort of nonsense straight away.

DQ: I suppose my main point is that everything we do has consequences and there is really no such thing as harmless behaviour. Our every action, big or small, has positive and negative consequences, and the thoughtful, responsible person is obliged to be aware of them.

EI: I personally don't filter everything through a positive/negative dichotomy like that, but such is a matter of personal taste.

You would be filtering things in this way, just as we all do, but you probably block it out in order to stay in tune with your love of greyness, fuzziness and uncertainty in regards to everything.

For example, it is evident that you consider reaching certainty in anything to be "bad", and remaining skeptical at all times and at all costs, regardless of context, to be "good".

For me, the positive or negative ethical consequences of, say, choosing macaroni over fettucini are so trivial that the very act of considering of such things would be negative, in that they'd waste time that could be spent consuming the delicious fettucini (which is quite obviously the superior choice).

If you were more concerned with your personal development, you might reflect on the possibility that making choices on the basis of satisfying short-term desires - in this case, the desire for a more satisfying eating experience - will gradually make your mind more hedonistic and animal-like. From some perspectives, this would be a "bad" thing.

However, with the help of plenty of good sex, kids, a wife, mortgage, reading materials, academic puzzles, etc, I'm sure a person could reach the stage where he doesn't really care.

-

[Kelly Jones]

I think you're getting a little off topic here.

Generally speaking, one's entire character influences one's choices.

Specifically, values influence choices the most.

The effect is more noticeable, when one suddenly finds reasons to disagree with comfortable, instinctive habits. It is going against the wind.

You should probably start a new thread to discuss me and my secret thoughts and hidden motivations. You could call it "ExpectantlyIronic: Awesome dude or Lamer n00b?" I'd unfortunately have to refrain from posting in it, as I already know all the crazy contents of my head, heart, and liver; which would spoil all the fun of your speculating.

You can't keep your thoughts hidden, you know. If the contents are crazy, the actions and speech are crazy.

Crazy. It's an interesting word.

Craze

–verb (used with object)
1. to derange or impair the mind of; make insane: He was crazed by jealousy.
2. to make small cracks on the surface of (a ceramic glaze, paint, or the like); crackle.
3. British Dialect. to crack.
4. Archaic. to weaken; impair: to craze one's health.
5. Obsolete. to break; shatter.

Origin: 1325–75; ME crasen to crush < Scand; cf. Sw, Norw krasa to shatter, crush

Have you changed your mind? Do you relate all things to an absolute context?

I haven't changed my mind about anything. I still don't see any way to break through the subjective realm of my experience to get at an absolute sort-of objective reality.

There is no actual division between subjective and objective realms or realities. The fact you can conceive of both means they're both real.

Trying to get at some thing beyond possible experience, as if it is the absolute reality, is a delusion born of ignorance. Because if Absolute Reality doesn't include possible experiences, how can it be Absolute Reality, meaning, not Relative Reality?





.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

I find my happiness in a passing butterfly because it will soon leave and die. You seem to eschew such happiness out of a fear that it will die with the bug.

This is obviously false, given that this particular fact alone isn't context-dependent. Indeed, you even present it as a non-contextual fact - i.e. as a universal fact which embraces all contexts. So we can dismiss this sort of nonsense straight away.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Most likely because I used the term "fact". What I meant to convey is that any particular statement only makes sense in it's particular context. For instance, if you were to take that last sentence to be about fish, it would obviously be gibberish.


Kelly,

There is no actual division between subjective and objective realms or realities. The fact you can conceive of both means they're both real.

Conceivability entails possibility at most. I can conceive of a fish falling out of the sky in five minutes, but that hardly means it's going to happen. Even so, I'm not certain I can conceive of an objective reality, in that I can't imagine what it might be like. Whenever I try I end up imagining plain old subjective reality. That said, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that they're the same thing. I can understand that something might be both the subject of my consciousness and an object in the outside world, but I can't see how the thing would be identical in both cases. Certainly an object isn't the same as its mental representation.

[David Quinn]

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

I find my happiness in a passing butterfly because it will soon leave and die.

You get happiness out of imagining butterflies die? That's pretty sick.

You seem to eschew such happiness out of a fear that it will die with the bug.

Anyone who places their happiness on impermanent things is being foolish, for they are creating the conditions for their own future suffering. Whether you want that sort of lifestyle is up to you, but I prefer to place all my happiness on Truth, which is permanent and beyond life and death, which nothing can take away.

EI: Like I said in a previous post, all stated fact is more-or-less context dependent to the point where we could add nigh-endless addendums to any given statement without ensuring that it's foundational axioms are correctly identified.

DQ: This is obviously false, given that this particular fact alone isn't context-dependent. Indeed, you even present it as a non-contextual fact - i.e. as a universal fact which embraces all contexts. So we can dismiss this sort of nonsense straight away.

EI: I think you misunderstood what I said. Most likely because I used the term "fact". What I meant to convey is that any particular statement only makes sense in it's particular context. For instance, if you were to take that last sentence to be about fish, it would obviously be gibberish.

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you making the trivial claim that all statements are built from definitions and therefore are dependent upon context in that sense? Or are you making the far more serious claim that there are no such things as universal truths?

-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

David,

but I prefer to place all my happiness on Truth

That's cool. Whatever works for you.

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you making the trivial claim that all statements are built from definitions and therefore are dependent upon context in that sense? Or are you making the far more serious claim that there are no such things as universal truths?

I was making the trivial claim there. Although, I hardly suggested that it was anything but trivial.

[Kelly Jones]

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

Kelly: There is no actual division between subjective and objective realms or realities. The fact you can conceive of both means they're both real.

ExpectantlyIronic: Conceivability entails possibility at most. I can conceive of a fish falling out of the sky in five minutes, but that hardly means it's going to happen.

Ok, so concepts can be false or true or uncertain.

That's clearly an objectively true statement, in the sense that all subjective concepts can be sorted by it. It appears within experience, but is necessarily true for all experiences.

Take concept A, for instance. A is anything. So this A is truly A, regardless of the context.

Even so, I'm not certain I can conceive of an objective reality, in that I can't imagine what it might be like. Whenever I try I end up imagining plain old subjective reality.

Well, if everything that can be experienced in consciousness is defined as a subjective reality, then "non-subjective-reality" is logically impossible.

Since things don't exist apart from consciousness, therefore, anything that isn't a subjective reality doesn't exist.

Such logical impossibilities would include "objective reality" (if it is the same as non-subjective-reality).

That said, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that they're the same thing. I can understand that something might be both the subject of my consciousness and an object in the outside world, but I can't see how the thing would be identical in both cases.

There is no "outside world".

What possible thing could appear when there is no consciousness?

Consciousness and things appearing is synonymous.

Certainly an object isn't the same as its mental representation.

Are you sure about that?

How do you know? Viewed a non-mental-representation lately?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kelly,

Ok, so concepts can be false or true or uncertain.

I think it's important to keep in mind here that we have to tinker with any given concept before it's ready to be categorized in this manner. I just can't take concept: <apple>, and suggest that it's true. First I need to work it into some sort of proposition such as "apples exist".

That's clearly an objectively true statement, in the sense that all subjective concepts can be sorted by it. It appears within experience, but is necessarily true for all experiences.

I don't disagree that we can sort propositions in the way you suggested, but I don't think it's accurate to suggest that we can do as much for every raw concept.

Take concept A, for instance. A is anything. So this A is truly A, regardless of the context.

It's a logical truth that a thing is itself, but logical truths of that sort say nothing. We learn nothing about an apple by knowing that it is itself. Therefore, the notion that "a thing is itself" is only true in the context of logic. You can argue that it can be reduced to simply "a thing", but in such a form we'll have to say that it isn't true at all, due to the fact that it lacks a predicate, and thus isn't a proper proposition. It should also be noted that it doesn't follow from the notion that "a thing exists" that "a thing is itself".

Well, if everything that can be experienced in consciousness is defined as a subjective reality, then "non-subjective-reality" is logically impossible.

I don't see why. It falls well into the territory of that which we cannot speak of, but that hardly means its existence is impossible.

There is no "outside world".

What possible thing could appear when there is no consciousness?

The "outside world" doesn't appear. We simply infer its existence from the fact that there seem to be other people who seem to exist in some sort of shared reality with us.

Are you sure about that?

Not at all. I just can't conceive of how such a thing might be the case.